Latest research - Rads increases malignancy!!!

Lily55

I so wish I had never had this but this research is something I think everyone considering radiotherapy should read first as it shows that it generates 30 times more malignant BC stem cells!

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/07/22/researchers-discover-radiation-treatment-leads-to-increased-malignancy-of-cancer/

chef127

Damned if we do and damned if we don't. WTF! Is there any conv BC treatment that isn't risky or damaging? Just one!

Lily, thanx for more bad news..................Really.

slv58

As I get ready to go in for 14/33 I really don't want to hear this. I have been so apprehensive about rads from the beginning on the other hand triple neg scares me more. Don't like being in this position.

Lily55

I hate it too especially as I allowed myself to be bullied and scared into doing Rads, my intuition told me no but as I had refused chemo I was not brave to refuse Rads as well as I had doctors literally shouting at me that I was high risk of recurrence, but I so wish I had listened to myself, I HATE the way we are forced to make such important decisions at such an important life changing and potentially life saving time of life......now i am SERIOUSLY stressed and worried that I have increased my risk of malignangy and malignant stem cells by 30..................... 

chef127

I too refused chemo and went into the rads kicking and screaming. During my first appt for mapping I freaked out in the waiting room and started to walk out when I heard my name being called in a search and it turned out to be the social worker. She spent an hour w me and finally convinced me to take the rads. I'm sort of glad I did, it was easy for me and my wbc never budged. My glucose level hit the roof. Never a warning about that. Or the BC stem cells. Or what ever other silent damage that occured. WHY do they deny any of it? Maybe the 75,000$ final bill influenced 'their decision'?

BayouBabe

Please go in and read the first two links (0 & 1, in the first paragraph) in the above linked article. I do not think this discovery is as bad as this first article makes us believe. We already know that some patients have a recurrence after rads. This study is just a step on the way to figure out why and how to lessen those recurrences.

Lily55

THis is the first paragraph - I see nothing encouraging in it......my whole area was radiated and has still not recovered......

"radiation drives breast cancer cells into greater malignancy(0)(1). Malignancy is a term used to describe the tendency of tumors and their potential to become progressively worse, ultimately resulting in death. They discovered that induced breast cancer cells (iBCSCs) were more likely to form tumors than the cells that haven’t been exposed to radiation. What’s even more astonishing is that that the radiated breast cancer cells increased their likelihood of malignancy by 30 times. Radiation treatment actually regresses the total population of cancer cells, generating the false appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumor. This can eventually result in the treatment-induced death of the patient."

riverhorse

I think if you read the original report it is not what the more sensational article describes.  I had no chemo, rads only and so am naturally very interested in this sort of research.  The original article does not suggest patients forego rads, but that this research has the potential to make rads more effective. 

http://www.cancer.ucla.edu/Index.aspx?page=644&recordid=560

sorry -- for some reason I can't make the link work.  But if you click on the 0 in the article posted by Lilly55 it will take you to the original research.  

 

graceforme

I'm supposed to start rads in a couple of weeks & now I'm so confused & scared. I don't know what to do.

riverhorse

graceforme

Please read the original research report by Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center that can be found by clicking on the 0 in the collective-evolution article.  The collective-evolution site seems to worry about the role of the "cancer industry" and seems to have a particular point of view. The actual research report is very hopeful and says clearly that  women should continue to use rads as appropriate.  Finally, please discuss this with your doctor -- it doesn't seem wise to make such decisions based on on-line info alone. 

I know how scary this is -- I decided against chemo and hope it was the right decision for me. However, my decision was not made because I thought chemo would make me more likely to recur, but because chemo was not likely to be as effective as hormone therapy due to the nature of my tumor.

From the research article's author:

Dr. Pajonk says the study does not discredit radiation therapy. “Patients come to me scared by the idea that radiation generates these cells, but it truly is the safest and most effective therapy there is.”

 

DeborahC

The end of the original article states

"Pajonk stressed that breast cancer patients should not be alarmed by the study findings and should continue to undergo radiation if recommended by their oncologists.

“Radiation is an extremely powerful tool in the fight against breast cancer,” he said. “If we can uncover the mechanism driving this transformation, we may be able to stop it and make the therapy even more powerful.”

I had radiation 20 years ago (far more than you would get with BC treatment).  It saved my life and I have had 20 years of mostly minor problems.  It probably did contribute/cause my current cancer, but we know that these treatments help us in the short run and still cause long term damage.  I am still alive and well and certainly don't regret getting the radiation.

jessica749

I appreciate your comment DeborahC. So much of the latest scientific info, this study, that study, comes with a press release but often needs more context than that within which it is presented.

I don't doubt the study and its finding, but that's different from agreeing with the article, or saying the article is presenting this particular, specific finding in the right context.  For example, there's this sentence:

"Research shows that radiotherapy increases cancer stem cells(6), which eventually results in cancer reoccurrence!"

The article leads you to believe that if you get radiation, you are increasing your chances of recurrence, when so many more powerful studies to date, it would seem, indicate the opposite.  

The article the same author wrote the day before for this website gives a sense of where they are at. It's entitled: "Man with stage 3 colon cancer refuses chemo and cures himself with vegan diet"  

 If someone is truly interested in "alternative medicine" and believes that radiation, chemo, other conventional treatments are negative forces, that's fine and their right. But I'm not sure this article is presented in its proper context.  I would urge anyone who is concerned enough by this to stop or not start recommended treatment to print the article and discuss it with their oncologist.  

chef127

I'm not saying that radiation tx is not effective on BC cells that are hanging around after surgery. Shouldn't we be informed by the RO what the possible risks are? Burning skin was the only s/e I was warned about. Too obvious not to disclose that info. IDK, but I feel I wasn't told of possible risks because I may have refused the rads, compromising my health and maybe the income$ of the RO and rad center. I've lost my trust, and question their motives. How unfortunate.

DeborahC

Chef, you absolutely should have been informed of the risks.  I was given a very long list of what could happen - both short term and long term.  I was given a detailed booklet on radiation.  I was monitored for thyroid damage and breast cancer.  I was told to see a dermatologist annually.  I was told to get cardiac testing (years later). 

Traii

Deborah, i am the same as you. HD in 1996. I was told a long list of info for both rads and chemo. It gave me a great 16 years before I got BC....I even had a healthy baby boy concieved naturally when I was told I probably couldnt.

Radiation today is totally different to the Mantle radiation they gave back in the 90's and beyond.

My underarm hair didnt grow back, my underarms look severly burnt.



Do I look back in having rads? Yeh I do because it gave me this BC, but it may also have helped me being here today telling my story.



My onc said that the rads team said I could be re-radiated on the chest area again for BC...well thats when I declined and took the chemo instead!



Everyone should be told about the risks etc associated with rads. That is the specialists jobs and i am saddened to think they wouldnt say anything because its $$$ driven. Shame on them.

Lily55

My head hurts......is all I can say as it is all so confusing and my stomach is still churning as all my efforts have been towards trying to eradicate cancer stem cells............

FireKracker

Did anyone's dr.tell them about the risk of LE..no one told me.

BayouBabe

We can only make the best decisions with the information/ research we have at the time. Please don't second guess yourselves. Cancer is stressful enough. If you read the above article, please, please CLICK on the 0 and the 1 for the original sources of the information. Different authors put their own slant/ biases on things. As a teacher, I can tell you, one source is never enough for this very reason.

jessica749

Well said. I recall expressing worry to my BS in my last follow up visit post surgery, about the secondary effects of treatment. She looked at me most seriously and with real emphasis if not emotion told me to remember that it was most important "to treat the cancer you have" rather than make decisions based on the cancers you may get in the future. Somehow that reads less reassuring than it sounded.  It was just like you are saying BayouBabe. You make the best decision at the time, you do what is most sensible at the time.

jessica749

PS Just want to add even though I am in no position to give context to the scientific discovery discussed in the cited article, there is a known inc risk of bc to young women treated for hodgkins or who have otherwise received chest radiation...this has to do with age...I think it is not a risk or certainly not the same risk for women who receive radiation who are older (above 40)...again, I am not that educated on this issue and urge anyone with concerns about to tspeak to the RO. They certainly know about it.