Thread: Cancer sucks

What a nightmare, Natalie8. Did you discover lumps yourself or was a problem detected in a routine doctor visit? Have you had reconstructive surgery?

A friend of mine recently had reconstructive surgery after her mastectomy. She Skyped me yesterday to show her new boobs off. They looked great!

Good luck on your new endeavor, the support center.

Originally Posted by natalie8

I DID do the chemo, but I had also used natural therapies and remedies. Fortunately for me, the pharmacist in the oncology department at American Hospital really believes in natural remedies and he gave me some great advice and guidance through all of this.

Very good combination. Those natural remedies can help a lot as an addition. They boost confidence, which is very important fighting cancer. Many doctors don't appreciate that can make a big difference but they become increasingly aware of it.

But some people like my aunt try to rely on them alone and that is rarely successful.

Ribbing in bad taste Natalie, just read, Sorry, lost my Wife to liver cancer many years ago started off as breast cancer had radium and chemotherapy all fine, liver cancer started 12 years later guess the chemotherapy missed a cell, to me she was still the beautiful woman I married and went through hell together at the end.

That's sad, oldgit. Sorry for your loss.

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Very good combination. Those natural remedies can help a lot as an addition. They boost confidence, which is very important fighting cancer. Many doctors don't appreciate that can make a big difference but they become increasingly aware of it. But some people like my aunt try to rely on them alone and that is rarely successful.

Yup. All good points. I don't like 'the establishment', especially the one in Canada. It discriminates against people who care about their health and rewards people who are lazy, loudmouth or drug addicted.

Originally Posted by oldgit

Ribbing in bad taste Natalie, just read, Sorry, lost my Wife to liver cancer many years ago started off as breast cancer had radium and chemotherapy all fine, liver cancer started 12 years later guess the chemotherapy missed a cell, to me she was still the beautiful woman I married and went through hell together at the end.

If you're talking about the ribbing on your thread about me, no worries. I like the thread concept.

I'm so sorry about your wife. My God, that must have been horrible. I have a great uncle who died of liver cancer a few years ago. He was diagnosed just before Christmas and he died less than 3 months later, on his birthday, March 11th.

Originally Posted by misskit

What a nightmare, Natalie8. Did you discover lumps yourself or was a problem detected in a routine doctor visit? Have you had reconstructive surgery? A friend of mine recently had reconstructive surgery after her mastectomy. She Skyped me yesterday to show her new boobs off. They looked great! Good luck on your new endeavor, the support center. __________________

As far as discovering anything, my story is very different from what you usually hear. I had had a large benign cyst in my right breast for many years. Never any problem with it. Then, one day I felt swelling in the lymph nodes in my right armpit. I thought this was either related to the cyst, or just a localized infection.

This kind of came and went over a few months. It was my husband who pushed me to get it checked. So I went for a mammogram and ultrasound in Dubai at Emirates Hospital. We were going to Bangkok shortly after this, so I went for an ultrasound there too, at Lad Prao Hospital. They could see that there was something there, but the cyst was blocking the view.

So, when we came back to Dubai, I went for a biopsy at American Hospital and I got the results a few days afterwards. It was around this time that I developed tumors in the breast, several of them and they grew really quickly.

I haven't had reconstructive surgery yet, just because of issues in timing. The good news is that with one method, the one that uses your own tissue, you get a tummy tuck to take the fat for the breast. So it's a double bonus.

When I was due for the surgery, I was told that I need to wait until everything is finished before I could have surgery. BUT, when I was going to the specialist hospital for radiation, I had met many women who had had the surgery right away.

All the best to your friend, and tell her congrats. New is always good.

Long time ago, misskit, she was clutching at straws when diagnosed, saw herb healer paid for £30.00 analysis of hair, said not cancer but mercury in teeth fillings and lack of vitamin A, so when I was not in the house pulled her teeth with fillings and started taking vitamin A tablets, I could have killed the swine trying to rip us off. but had other problems, Jehovah's trying to worm themselves in etc

Thanks for this report. I was told about chemo brain, so I would just assume that's what it was if my short term memory failed or if I couldn't get myself organized as well as I had before.

It's interesting how they did the study, but I think that this type of study should be done on patients of all the major diseases. this would give a better picture of what happens in the brain of anyone who is unwell.

I could assume that the stress of the treatment and the side effects of the drugs, along with low blood counts and feeling run down definitely DO affect the brain and the mind. Going through somehting like this is extremely stressful and we all know about the negative effects of stress.

cool op. thanks.

I think the chemo does affect some poeple, wife when putting track suit top on thinking they were trousers told me I had spoiled them in the wash, makes them feeble minded I think.

Research Sheds Light on Gene Mutation's Role in Rare Tumors

Findings could spur new treatments for more common cancers, study suggests

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 21 (HealthDay News) -- Mutations in a gene called DICER are associated with rare, seemingly unrelated ovarian, uterine and testicular cancers, a new study finds.

The Canadian researchers said they were surprised to discover that the same fundamental mutation in the DICER gene was the common process underlying all these different cancers.

The study was published in the Dec. 21 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

"DICER is of great interest to cancer researchers," team leader Dr. David Huntsman, a genetic pathologist and director of the Ovarian Cancer Program of B.C. at the British Columbia Cancer Agency and Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, said in a University of British Columbia news release.

"There have been nearly 1,300 published studies about it in the last 10 years, but until now, it has not been known how the gene functions in relation to cancer," said Hunstman, who is also a professor in the departments of obstetrics and gynecology, and pathology and laboratory medicine at UBC.

This new finding could lead to breakthroughs for treatments of more common cancers, according to the researchers.

"Studying rare tumors not only is important for the patients and families who suffer from them but also provides unique opportunities to make discoveries critical to more common cancers -- both in terms of personalized medicine, but also in applying what we learn from how we manage rare diseases to more common and prevalent cancers," Huntsman explained.

"The discovery of the DICER mutation in this varied group of rare tumors is the equivalent of finding not the needle in the haystack, but rather the same needle in many haystacks," he added.

link: Research Sheds Light on Gene Mutation's Role in Rare Tumors - US News and World Report

Red meat lovers have more kidney cancer

People who eat lots of red meat may have a higher risk of some types of kidney cancer, suggests a large U.S. study.

Researchers found that middle-aged adults who ate the most red meat were 19 percent more likely to be diagnosed with kidney cancer than those who ate the least. A higher intake of chemicals found in grilled or barbecued meat was also linked to increased risk of the disease, they reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

"Red meat is an important source for iron (and) it has protein," said Dr. Mohammed El-Faramawi, an epidemiologist from the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth, who has studied diet and kidney cancer risks but wasn't involved in the new study.

"You should not stop eating red meat because there is an association between red meat and renal cancer," he told Reuters Health. Instead, eating a limited amount of meat while following dietary recommendations is a good idea, he said.

U.S. guidelines call for limiting high-fat foods including processed meat, and instead eating more lean meat and poultry, seafood and nuts.

Eating red meat in large amounts -- even if it doesn't necessarily lead to kidney cancer -- increases the risk of a host of health problems, such as plaque buildup in the arteries, El-Faramawi added.

Previous studies examining the link between red meat and kidney cancer arrived at mixed conclusions, according to Carrie Daniel, from the National Cancer Institute in Rockville, Maryland, and her colleagues.

To try to clear up that picture, they used data from a study of close to 500,000 U.S. adults age 50 and older, who were surveyed on their dietary habits, including meat consumption, and then followed for an average of nine years to track any new cancer diagnoses.

During that time, about 1,800 of them -- less than half a percent -- were diagnosed with kidney cancer.

On average, men in the study ate two or three ounces of red meat per day, compared to one or two ounces among women. Participants with the highest consumption of red meat -- about four ounces per day -- were 19 percent more likely to be diagnosed with kidney cancer than those who ate the smallest amount, less than one ounce per day.

That was after accounting for other aspects of diet and lifestyle that could have influenced cancer risks, such as age, race, fruit and vegetable consumption, smoking and drinking and other medical conditions including high blood pressure and diabetes.

When the researchers looked at the most common types of kidney cancers, they found that the association between red meat and cancer was stronger for so-called papillary cancers, but there was no effect for clear-cell kidney cancers.

People who ate the most well-done grilled and barbecued meat -- and therefore had the highest exposure to carcinogenic chemicals that come out of the cooking process -- also had an extra risk of kidney cancer compared to those who didn't cook much meat that way.

The study doesn't prove that eating red meat, or cooking it a certain way, causes kidney cancer. And, El-Faramawi pointed out, some people who eat lots of red meat won't develop cancer, while others that hardly eat any will.

Daniel and her colleagues said more research is needed to figure out why red meat may be linked to some types of kidney cancers but not others.

But for now, meat-related cooking chemicals "can be reduced by avoiding direct exposure of meat to an open flame or a hot metal surface, reducing the cooking time, and using a microwave oven to partially cook meat before exposing it to high temperatures," Daniel told Reuters Health in an email.

"Our findings," she concluded, "support the dietary recommendations for cancer prevention currently put forth by the American Cancer Society -- limit intake of red and processed meats and prepare meat by cooking methods such as baking and broiling."

SOURCE: bit.ly/u2TOw9 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, January 2012.

Link: Red meat lovers have more kidney cancer | Reuters

Processed meat 'linked to pancreatic cancer'

A link between eating processed meat, such as bacon or sausages, and pancreatic cancer has been suggested by researchers in Sweden.

They said eating an extra 50g of processed meat, approximately one sausage, every day would increase a person's risk by 19%.

But the chance of developing the rare cancer remains low.

The World Cancer Research Fund suggested the link may be down to obesity.

Eating red and processed meat has already been linked to bowel cancer. As a result the UK government recommended in 2011 that people eat no more than 70g a day.

Prof Susanna Larsson, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute, told the BBC that links to other cancers were "quite controversial".

She added: "It is known that eating meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer, it's not so much known about other cancers."

The study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, analysed data from 11 trials and 6,643 patients with pancreatic cancer.

Increased risk

It found that eating processed meat increased the risk of pancreatic cancer. The risk increased by 19% for every 50g someone added to their daily diet. Having an extra 100g would increase the risk by 38%.

Prof Larsson said: "Pancreatic cancer has poor survival rates. So as well as diagnosing it early, it's important to understand what can increase the risk of this disease."

She recommended that people eat less red meat.

Cancer Research UK said the risk of developing pancreatic cancer in a lifetime was "comparatively small" - one in 77 for men and one in 79 for women.

Sara Hiom, the charity's information director, said: "The jury is still out as to whether meat is a definite risk factor for pancreatic cancer and more large studies are needed to confirm this, but this new analysis suggests processed meat may be playing a role."

However, she pointed out that smoking was a much greater risk factor.

The World Cancer Research Fund has advised people to completely avoid processed meat.

Dr Rachel Thompson, the fund's deputy head of science, said: "We will be re-examining the factors behind pancreatic cancer later this year as part of our Continuous Update Project, which should tell us more about the relationship between cancer of the pancreas and processed meat.

"There is strong evidence that being overweight or obese increases the risk of pancreatic cancer and this study may be an early indication of another factor behind the disease.

"Regardless of this latest research, we have already established a strong link between eating red and processed meat and your chances of developing bowel cancer, which is why WCRF recommends limiting intake of red meat to 500g cooked weight a week and avoid processed meat altogether."

link: BBC News - Processed meat 'linked to pancreatic cancer'

Red and processed meat consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis of prospective studies: British Journal of Cancer - Red and processed meat consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis of prospective studies

Cancer 'slowed by cooked tomatoes'

A nutrient in cooked tomatoes has been shown in laboratory studies to slow the growth of - and even kill - prostate cancer cells, scientists said today.

Lycopene found in cooked tomatoes intercepts cancer's ability to cause damage Photo: Newscast / Alamy

9:08AM GMT 31 Jan 2012

Dr Mridula Chopra and colleagues at the University of Portsmouth tested the effect of the nutrient lycopene on the simple mechanism through which cancer cells hijack a body's healthy blood supply to grow and spread.
They found that lycopene, which is what gives tomatoes their red colour, intercepts cancer's ability to make the connections it needs to attach to a healthy blood supply.

The researchers, from the university's School of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, are now calling for tests to check if the same reaction occurs in the human body.
Director of the research Dr Chopra said: ''This simple chemical reaction was shown to occur at lycopene concentrations that can easily be achieved by eating processed tomatoes.''

Lycopene is present in all red fruits and vegetables, but its concentrations are highest in tomatoes and it becomes more readily available and biologically active when it comes from processed tomatoes with a small amount of cooking oil added.


Dr Chopra said: ''I stress that our tests were done in test tubes in a laboratory and more testing needs to be carried out to confirm our findings, but the laboratory evidence we have found is clear - it is possible to intercept the simple mechanism some cancer cells use to grow at concentrations that can be achieved by eating sufficient cooked tomatoes.''

The research, which is published in the British Journal of Nutrition, was part-funded by Heinz after the food manufacturer asked for more research to follow up earlier studies by the same researchers which showed a significant increase in lycopene levels in blood and semen samples after subjects ate 400g (14oz) of processed tomatoes for two weeks.
Dr Chopra and her colleagues Simone Elgass and Alan Cooper said they had a firm agreement they would publish their results irrespective of the outcome.
Cancer cells can remain dormant for years until their growth is triggered through the secretion of chemicals which initiate the process of linking cancer cells with endothelial cells which act as healthy gatekeeper cells lining blood vessels.
This allows the cancer cells to reach out and attach to the blood supply.
In the laboratory experiments, lycopene was shown to disrupt this linking process, without which cancer cells cannot grow.
The researchers explained that all cancer cells use a similar mechanism (angiogenesis) to ''feed'' upon a healthy blood supply.
They said there was added importance of this mechanism for prostate cancer because lycopene tends to accumulate in prostate tissues.
Dr Chopra said: ''The important thing is for sufficient lycopene to reach where it can matter. We know that in case of prostate tissues it gets there.
''We have tested this in the labs but we don't yet know if the same action will happen in the body.
''Individuals will vary in how much lycopene their bodies make available to fight cancer cell growth and the ability of lycopene to 'intercept' in this way in the body is likely to vary between tomato products - both processing and cooking with fat have previously been shown to make lycopene more effective biologically.
''The type of tomatoes which offer the most effective lycopene also differs and more tests need to be done to find the best breed of tomato for this purpose.''
It was suggested in their previous research that smokers might have to consume more tomatoes than non-smokers to achieve the benefits of lycopene due to the presence of high oxidative stress in smokers.
Eleanor Barrie, senior science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: ''Some existing cancer drugs target the formation of new blood vessels, but more research is needed to show how they could be used to help cancer patients.
''This small study doesn't directly tell us if lycopene has any effect against cancer, but research like this can help us to understand more about how the chemical affects blood vessel formation.''

Cancer 'slowed by cooked tomatoes' - Telegraph

A very nice way to start the day is sliced grilled tomato's on toast with pepper sprinkled on top. Easy to make and very healthy.

Originally Posted by natalie8

The good news is that with one method, the one that uses your own tissue, you get a tummy tuck to take the fat for the breast.

Oh, when your hubby squeezes your tit he's copping a feel, but when you rub your boob you're just signaling you're hungry.

Anti-cancer drug for women weakens bone density

A drug tipped for widespread use to prevent breast cancer in post-menopausal women also accelerates loss of bone density, thus potentially boosting the risk of fractures, a study published on Tuesday said.

Exemestane — brand name Aromasin — is part of a drug class called aromatase inhibitors, which lower levels of the oestrogen that some breast cancers need in order to grow.

Canadian bone specialists took a look at a group of patients who had taken part in a study into the effectiveness of exemestane among 4,500 healthy women with a worrying family history of breast cancer.

Overall, the big study showed that the drug was highly effective, reducing the risk of breast cancer by almost two-thirds.

The bone sub-study looked at 351 women who had been taking either exemestane or a dummy lookalike pill and whose bone density was measured with hi-tech scanners.

After two years, women taking exemestane had a high loss of bone density at a common fracture point in the wrist called the distal radius, and also at the lower end of the tibia, compared with their counterparts on placebo.

The exemestane users also had an eight-percent decline in the thickness of cortical bone, which comprises the protective outer shell of the bones.

That finding in particular is worrying because nearly four out of every five fractures in old age occur in cortical bone. These accidents are a huge source of disability.

“Women considering exemestane for the primary prevention of breast cancer should weigh their individual risks and benefits,” says the study, headed by Angela Cheung of the University Health Network in Toronto.

“For women taking exemestane, regular bone monitoring plus adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation are important.”

The paper is published online by the journal The Lancet Oncology.

link: Anti-cancer drug for women weakens bone density | The Raw Story

and

Bone loss associated with prevention of breast cancer : The Lancet Oncology

New study casts doubt on lung cancer treatment

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – A controversial radiation treatment for patients who’ve had lung cancer surgery may not help elderly people live longer, U.S. researchers have found.

Postoperative radiotherapy, or PORT, is thought to cut the chances that a tumor will return. But it can damage the heart and lungs, which might cancel out any potential benefits — particularly in seniors.

“Thus, these patients may be exposed to the side effects and complications of PORT without a clear benefit,” lead researcher Dr. Juan Wisnivesky, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, told Reuters Health by email.

The findings fuel an ongoing debate over how much treatment older cancer patients should get. Often those treatments have been tested in younger people and it’s unclear whether other age groups will reap the same benefits.

Side effects may take a higher toll on older people’s health, for instance, and they may not live long enough to see the positive effects of their therapy.

“The marginal benefit of the additional treatment gets smaller and smaller as patients get older,” said Dr. David J. Sher, a radiation expert at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, who was not involved in the new work.

“Their overall fitness generally doesn’t warrant postoperative radiotherapy,” he told Reuters Health. “It’s a fine balance.”

The new study, published in the journal Cancer, analyzed data on more than 1,300 Medicare patients who’d had surgery for early-stage lung cancer.

Such patients usually don’t get radiation therapy, but in this group the cancer had spread to lymph nodes in the chest. There is no agreement on what to do in that case, and earlier studies have come to mixed conclusions.

It turned out that about half of the patients, most of whom were over 70, had been treated with radiation.

It’s hard to compare those who got radiation and those who didn’t directly, because different factors may have influenced the individual decisions to treat or not. But in their study, Wisnivesky and his colleagues did their best to account for patient characteristics, tumor size, type of surgery, complications and other possible differences.

No matter how they analyzed the data, however, they were unable to find a survival benefit linked to radiation treatment after surgery.

According to Sher, the therapy typically costs between $10,000 and $15,000.

“That being said,” he added, “if it prevents the recurrence it also saves a lot of money later.”

Dr. Benjamin Smith, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said the kind of patients in the new study have a grim prognosis, with at most 20 to 30 percent surviving more than five years.

“Some physicians want to try to do everything they can to get a benefit,” said Smith, who wasn’t involved in the research. “This data, however, makes me reconsider whether or not there truly is a benefit with respect to patient survival, which at the end of the day is the most important outcome.”

He said immediate side effects of radiation include fatigue, skin reactions and pain when swallowing. Down the road, it may also weaken the heart and the lungs.

“I don’t think that radiation is likely to cause life-threatening side effects, but it is certainly inconvenient and can impair a patient’s quality of life,” Smith told Reuters Health.

There is currently a rigorous clinical trial under way that may shed more light on whether postoperative radiation is a good idea for lung cancer that turns out to have invaded the lymph nodes in the chest — a relatively uncommon scenario.

Meanwhile, patients and doctors should weigh the pros and cons together, said Smith.

“It’s worth patients having a discussion with their surgeon and radiation oncologist about whether or not to do radiation after surgery,” he said.

SOURCES: bit.ly/h73jcS Cancer, online February 13, 2012.

link: New study casts doubt on lung cancer treatment | Reuters

My mum just lost half her nose and my dad half his ear to skin cancer.

Fortunately everything looks clear although my dad has to have some precautionary radiation therapy and my mum had a skin graft and some plastic surgery but let it be a warning to all to deal with sores that don't heal quickly.

Just lost an old football pal to pancreatic cancer, 64.

Thats a real bad one, usually to late once its discovered.

After my bout with C I am paranoid. Every time something don't work right it is fear factor again.

Going away from this thread all the best to those suffering. can't handle the conversation.

Mayo Clinic Study Finds Dramatic Rise in Skin Cancer in Young Adults

Researchers speculate indoor tanning bed use, childhood sunburns are key culprits

ROCHESTER, Minn. — Even as the rates of some cancers are falling, Mayo Clinic is seeing an alarming trend: the dramatic rise of skin cancer, especially among people under 40. According to a study by Mayo Clinic researchers published in the April issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings, the incidence of melanoma has escalated, and young women are the hardest hit.

"We anticipated we'd find rising rates, as other studies are suggesting, but we found an even higher incidence than the National Cancer Institute had reported using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Result database, and in particular, a dramatic rise in women in their 20s and 30s," says lead investigator Jerry Brewer, M.D., a Mayo Clinic dermatologist.

Researchers conducted a population-based study using records from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, a decades-long database of all patient care in Olmsted County, Minn. They looked for first-time diagnoses of melanoma in patients 18 to 39 from 1970 to 2009. The study found the incidence of melanoma increased eightfold among young women and fourfold among young men. The lifetime risk of melanoma is higher in males than females, but the opposite is true in young adults and adolescents, Dr. Brewer says.

Researchers also found mortality rates from the disease have improved over the years, likely due to early detection of skin cancer and prompt medical care.

"People are now more aware of their skin and of the need to see a doctor when they see changes," Dr. Brewer says. "As a result, many cases may be caught before the cancer advances to a deep melanoma, which is harder to treat."

The researchers speculate that the use of indoor tanning beds is a key culprit in the rising cancer rate in young women.

"A recent study reported that people who use indoor tanning beds frequently are 74 percent more likely to develop melanoma, and we know young women are more likely to use them than young men," Dr. Brewer says. Despite abundant information about the dangers of tanning beds, he adds, young women continue to use them. "The results of this study emphasize the importance of active interventions to decrease risk factors for skin cancer and, in particular, to continue to alert young women that indoor tanning has carcinogenic effects that increase the risk of melanoma."

Janey Helland, of Mapleton, Minn., didn't think twice when tanning in high school and college.

"I used tanning beds to get ready for homecoming and prom," she says. "In college, I tanned before a trip to Barbados because I didn't want to get sunburned." At age 21, Helland noticed an abnormal spot on her leg. It was melanoma, and the diagnosis changed Helland's life. "I really didn't know what my future was going to look like, or if I'd even have one."

Two years later, she is cancer-free and dedicated to educating others. "I would advocate that it's better to be safe than sorry," she says. "My advice is to educate yourself and research the risk factors."

Childhood sunburns and ultraviolet exposure in adulthood may also contribute to melanoma development, the researchers say.

The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health. Other authors include Kurtis Reed, M.D., Christine Lohse, Kariline Bringe, Crystal Pruitt, and Lawrence Gibson, M.D. all of Mayo Clinic.

article with links: Mayo Clinic - Mayo Clinic Study Finds Dramatic Rise in Skin Cancer in Young Adults

Originally Posted by oldgit

lost my Wife to liver cancer many years ago started off as breast cancer .

Same as my mum except she had a major debilitating stroke 2 years prior at only 62.

Two year to die. Foking shocker hence why I'm not scared of dying but shit scared of living through a major stroke.

Just had skin cancer of the nose last month and I'm 54.

Shitting bricks big time.

Hence why I live exactly the way I want too and make no excuses for it.