 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / August 2008Christina Applegate Cancer Free??
I saw a notice on CNN today that Christina Applegate the actress has had double mastectomies and after her breast cancer diagnosis just 3 weeks ago is stating she is 100% cured and free of cancer. First of all, I do hope she is right but I thought the new research on this has stated that having double mastectomies does not guarantee one 100% protection from the cancer returning. Especially after one was just diagnosed 3 weeks ago. Recently I had read that many Oncologists were recommending lumpectomies with chemo and radiation as being just as helpful to survival and were not going whole hog on double mastectomies these days. I know my own surgeon refused to do it on me. So does this mean women who have had the doubles can consider themselves cured and cancer free?? Just wondering if I misunderstood some of the latest info I read. Bea 'NO FORWARDS OR SPAM, PLEASE" Christine tested positive for the BRCA1 and has a 80% chance of cancer in the good breast, she is in her 30's and breast cancer tends to be triple neg, ER/PR/Her2 neg which is a more aggressive cancer. They recommend cancer to bilateral mastectomies to BRCA positive women and no cancer. In the interview she said she could live with the high risk. >I saw a notice on CNN today that Christina Applegate the actress has had > double mastectomies and after her breast cancer diagnosis just 3 weeks [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 'NO FORWARDS OR SPAM, PLEASE" >I saw a notice on CNN today that Christina Applegate the actress has had > double mastectomies and after her breast cancer diagnosis just 3 weeks [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > had the doubles can consider themselves cured and cancer free?? Just > wondering if I misunderstood some of the latest info I read. They can consider themselves 'cured and cancer-free' if they like. I wouldn't. It would be more devasting, I should think, to have a recurrence if you think you won't than if you have a more realistic attitude. I know what COULD happen to me, I hope it doesn't but I still say that I have bc and not that I had bc. Mary > They can consider themselves 'cured and cancer-free' if they like. I The first time I had breast cancer, after surgery and radiation and a battery of tests that showed no indication of any remaining cancer, my oncologist told me I was "Clinically Cancer Free". I liked that term; it felt a lot like being cured, without any unrealistic long term implications. I still don't know whether I was "cured": since I have (had?) it again, but a new primary rather than a recurrence of the original tumor. On the other hand, this time, right after my masectomy, my daughter started telling people that her mom didn't have cancer anymore. I appreciate her optimism, even while doing my best to try to live up to it :-) < The first time I had breast cancer, after surgery and radiation and a battery of tests that showed no indication of any remaining cancer, my oncologist told me I was "Clinically Cancer Free". I liked that term; it felt a lot like being cured, without any unrealistic long term implications. I still don't know whether I was "cured": since I have (had?) it again, but a new primary rather than a recurrence of the original tumor. I think it was OK to say you were "cured" then. If you broke your leg and they repaired it, you could say you didn't have a broken leg any more; and if you then, years later, broke the other one, you would say you had another broken leg, but you wouldn't say the "cure" the first time was invalid. and is a recurrence a sign that you were never cured? a separate primary tumor means you were? Doctors have definitions of "cures" and many of them call early-stage BC "curable." And they use the five-year mark too. Was Lance Armstrong cured? if he got cancer tomorrow would we say well, it was only remission then? I don't know. I guess the terms don't matter. I had a cancerous tumor and it was removed. So today I don't have cancer. I might have it and not know (so might millions of others). We all get cancerous cells regularly, I guess, and they don't kill us or even create symptoms we recognize. my stepdad had cancer in his leg. Surgically removed. About four years later he was diagnosed with lung cancer. unrelated to the other cancer. If we live long enough, many (most?) of us will get cancer. Christina Applegate (since people seem fixated on discussing "celebrity tumors," LOL) is not a particularly bright individual, no fault of her own, and she didn't have scriptwriters for her latest comments, so it's not appropriate to judge what she said. And what an awful time she's been through, with the death of her ex, and now double mast. at age 36, with no spouse/partner, and never having had a child.....scary and traumatic. so young. On the other hand, this time, right after my masectomy, my daughter started telling people that her mom didn't have cancer anymore. I appreciate her optimism, even while doing my best to try to live up to it :-) how much time between your diagnoses? and your daughter is right! > If we live > long enough, many (most?) of us will get cancer. I strongly believe that the incidence of most common cancers contains a truly random component, so that if we did live long enough, *everyone* would get cancer. I view it that each cancer has an associated period, for breast cancer in women it is perhaps about 150 years on average, such that after that time, half the population would have had at least one episode of the disease. Of course that is an oversimplification, but I find it a useful model. Tim >> If we live long enough, many (most?) of us will get cancer. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > half the population would have had at least one episode of the disease. > Of course that is an oversimplification, but I find it a useful model. Oh goody! I've used up my quota and can live bc-free to over 150 :-) On the other hand, I might have someone else's quota :-( And there's still that bus lurking round the corner :-(( Bugger! <VBG> Mary > how much time between your diagnoses? The first time I was diagnosed was December 1987..... the second time was 20 years later, almost to the day. Both tumors were in the same breast; pathologically they were very different (one lobular, one ductal, one ER-, one ER+, etc.) > and your daughter is right! always..... at least, that's what she tells me :-) >The first time I was diagnosed was December > 1987..... the second time was 20 years later, > almost to the day. Both tumors were in the > same breast; pathologically they were very > different (one lobular, one ductal, one ER-, > one ER+, etc.) Your post reminds me of why I was told I was so lucky to have gotten my bc in my later years. I guess they figure if it can take 20 years to return, the older patient will have passed on due to her age. The older the better it seems. If I was 80 years old, I would be one really lucky lady!<g Bea 'NO FORWARDS OR SPAM, PLEASE" one wonders if radiation contributed to the second tumor. but....I had two areas in one breast, one lobular the other ductal....20 years, isn't that the same interval as Les had with her two diagnoses? >> how much time between your diagnoses? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > always..... at least, that's what she tells me :-) > one wonders if radiation contributed to the second tumor. I think it quite likely did. I was 35 years old at first diagnosis; there is not much of a population (thank goodness!) for statistical study of that sort of group. The radiation treatments definitely gave me another problem: this time, after the masectomy and reconstruction (DIEP flap), much of the previously radiated tissue did not survive. It was a mess for several weeks, and eventually required skin grafts to close the wound where it no longer had skin. Still..... given the data and information available at the time (both 1987 and 2007), I think the treatments and decisions were reasonable. On Aug 21, 11:09 pm, "pumpkin" <billowr...@att.net> wrote: > one wonders if radiation contributed to the second tumor. ... ..... given the data and information available at the time (both 1987 and 2007), I think the treatments and decisions were reasonable. That's something we should all remember - not just in the area of bc treeatment but all medical interventions. Spouse has been making reproduction C14th surgical instruments lately and some of them look very gruesome but sometimes their use resulted in life for the patient, without them s/he would have died. His latest project is trepanning tools and when people see the pictures they make scathing comments about how primitive were our forebears. But without the people who developed the techniques and the patients who were prepared to be guinea pigs I wouldn't be here now. Interestingly, many of the instruments are exactly the same design (although different materials) as some of those used today. A C21st practising surgeon said that he'd be very happy to use a scalpel Spouse made, copied from a Middle Eastern C12th illustration. Few of us would be here without the cutting edge technology experiments of the time. And progress continues, even the best of today's treatments will one day be thought of as cruel and largely ineffective. Mary > Spouse has been making reproduction C14th surgical instruments lately and > some of them look very gruesome but sometimes their use resulted in life for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the time. And progress continues, even the best of today's treatments will > one day be thought of as cruel and largely ineffective. Coincidentally the BBC is running a TV series on the history of surgery "Blood and Guts" on (digital) BBC4, Wednesdays at 9pm. I watched the one on lobotomy, which I found pretty horrifying. This week it's hearts. Tim ... > Coincidentally the BBC is running a TV series on the history of surgery > "Blood and Guts" on (digital) BBC4, Wednesdays at 9pm. I watched the one > on lobotomy, which I found pretty horrifying. This week it's hearts. But we haven't a tv, even a rubber-band powered one :-) Before my brain was seen to I asked the surgeon what he'd do and he explained it in great deatil, it was fascinating. Afterwards he told me what he'd found and I valued the information. A friend who's a surgery photographer said, when I said I'd have liked to watch my operation, said that I wouldn't, if I knew what went on. I told him what I'd been told and he was surprised that I'd been given the whole information, most people couldn't take it. I was fascinated though. Spouse's prostate surgeon spent a couple of hours telling us everything ("probably more than I should have done") and again it was fascinating, andmore importantly, made us feel part of the process. His manual surgery will soon be overtaken by the remote control da Vinci robot-assisted, minimally invasive procedure, which is better for everyone. But Spouse doesn't mind being one of the last patients of the 'hands-on' surgery, it saved his life at a time when it was the best. And it was very good experience for the surgical team. Mary that lobotomy doctor meant well, he really did. >> Spouse has been making reproduction C14th surgical instruments lately and >> some of them look very gruesome but sometimes their use resulted in life [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Tim > They can consider themselves 'cured and cancer-free' if they like. I > The first time I had breast cancer, after surgery and radiation and a battery of tests that showed no indication of any remaining cancer, my oncologist told me I was "Clinically Cancer Free". I liked that term; I also like NED, which I've only seen on this ng - No Evidence of Disease. > it felt a lot like being cured, without any unrealistic long term implications. You know, I don't think I worry about being 'cured' or gain any comfort from thinking that NED might be close to being cured. Life's short enough already to do everything without having such thoughts :-) But I'm not 'normal', I accept that. And there's only one cure for my condition <g> Mary > I also like NED, which I've only seen on this ng - No Evidence of Disease. And I thought it was a Glasgow yob. I guess that's a Ned. :) Tim >> I also like NED, which I've only seen on this ng - No Evidence of >> Disease. > > And I thought it was a Glasgow yob. I guess that's a Ned. > :) No, Ned is one of our grandsons. Short for Edmund. Mary I have a number of conditions that are incurable. They are manageable but not curable. They are marked by relapse and remission, but there is no cure. And we know there is no "cure" for any virus, yet the so-called common cold is self-limiting. The word "cure" is an interesting one (don't get me started on "Race for the Cure")....many people don't think that we SHOULD be trying to "cure" autism or Downs or even ADHD or ....er....aging and death. tangential post, I know. sorry. but my point (and I did have one, LOL) was that....Elizabeth Edwards has incurable cancer, yet she is alive. there's no cure for death, and life is a sexually transmitted terminal illness... >> They can consider themselves 'cured and cancer-free' if they like. I > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Mary > I saw a notice on CNN today that Christina Applegate the actress has had > double mastectomies and after her breast cancer diagnosis just 3 weeks [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 'NO FORWARDS OR SPAM, PLEASE" I guess everyone who doesn't have detectable mets. can declare themselves 100% cured after surgery. The rest is guesswork. One could argue that at that point you don't *have* cancer, only a risk of cancer, and we all have a risk of cancer, it's only a quantitative distinction. When we say we have a disease we usually mean it is symptomatic. While the medics might say that if you have a cache of cancer cells holed up somewhere in the body, then you 'have' cancer, the point is that is something one can only detect with hindsight, and if you want to split those sort of hairs, then we probably all 'have' lots of diseases that we don't know about, like several herpes viruses for a start, but that doesn't mean we have shingles or cold-sores. So today she is cured and free from cancer, tomorrow she might not be. Not because she has had a double mastectomy, but because she has had the tumour removed. The double mastectomy isn't about reducing the risk of distant recurrence, it's about reducing the risk of new primaries. So it is indicated for women who are at high risk of breast cancer generally (e.g. genetically) and who have had at least one occurrence. Tim Jackson > > I saw a notice on CNN today that Christina Applegate the actress has had > > double mastectomies and after her breast cancer diagnosis just 3 weeks [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Tim Jackson She is BRCA1 positive, as is her mother, so the bilateral mastectomy was indicated as her risk of a second primary is up to 80%--no one is mentioning removing her ovaries--she's only 36. I think the "cancer free" comment is just an over simplification for her interview on a morning talk show. But, that's just my interpretation, I was tested for BRCA, and if it was positive, the oncologist was recommending mastectomies and ovary removal. It's a surgical option to reduce the high risk of second cancer, and it's not perfect or absolute. And not everyone who is BRCA1 positive goes that route. I'm still in the relatively early days of this breast cancer experience, just completed radiation, ready to start tamoxifen--I don't think of myself as "cancer free" or a survivor. Just someone who is being treated for a disease. The article that Eva posted about having a personality while being a cancer patient was really on target for me: the author concluded with comments about how her life and her perceptions of herself were profoundly changed, while her oncologist pronounced her normal. It's a new normal, and it's in evolution. Judy |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.