Giuliana Rancic early stage BC

Options
245678

Comments

  • beacon800
    beacon800 Member Posts: 922
    edited October 2011

    I saw the interview and thought she did a good job.  How early is "early", well, time gives that answer and I wish her the best possible health.  She wants to put a postive spin and I am sure that helps her mentally as well.  Truth is, all of us learn as we go and she is probably telling what she thinks is the ultimate truth.  Hope she's right.

    Her fertility doc gets the blue ribbon for being awesome!  One that that scares the heck out of me is the many fertility treatments that women get, where those women may have small or latent cancer cells brought into an aggressive state by the treatments.  Smart doctor and good man to force that mammo!

  • thats-life-
    thats-life- Member Posts: 1,075
    edited October 2011

    Im appalled by the continuous verbal assaults here on bco and elsewhere at newly dx'd earlier stage women too. It wasnt long ago I was a shaking confused newbie, so what if we havent got our heads around it, or dont have all the facts yet. I dont think that's even possible anyway, its such a varied disease. I have been wondering too why we are telling people so adamantly that their cancer will come back (or is lurking)... it will be the case for some..but it wont for many. I get that we want to spread the word about possible mets, or recurrence, but im starting to feel a bit embarrased too.

  • shannonW
    shannonW Member Posts: 186
    edited October 2011

    I agree with you beacon. I found the interview online and just finished watching it. I thought she said it well. That Dr. was right-on to order a mammo and I hope after this cancer journey she get's preggers as well as use her platform to raise funding for research! She semed like she was trying not to cry towards the end of the interview. I'm sure she's sharing what she knows and will continue to do so as she finds out more from surgery.

  • PizzaDad
    PizzaDad Member Posts: 126
    edited October 2011

    Sorry ladies. I have to say something.   She has breast cancer. her world has just been snatched away from her.  Everything that she thought was real is now changed.  She is freaked out overwhelmed.  She is reaching out to anyone who will listen so she can deal with it and wrap her head around it.  I don't know who she is and it doesn't matter. Famous or not. Rich or poor. The pink ribbon changes everything.

    Now.  Kick my ass if you need to.  I can take it.

  • lrr4993
    lrr4993 Member Posts: 937
    edited October 2011

    I just saw a few clips from her interview.  PizzaDad is correct.  She plainly is upset and in shock and trying to process the situation.  I remember the feeling.   

  • exbrnxgrl
    exbrnxgrl Member Posts: 12,424
    edited October 2011

    Thank you all who feel that kindness and compassion are something that all women, famous or not, deserve when they receive a bc diagnosis. And that diagnosis whether dcis or higher stage with node involvement or mets is still a devastating thing to learn. That we would attack someone in this situation truly makes me sad. Caryn

  • Lowrider54
    Lowrider54 Member Posts: 2,721
    edited October 2011

    Hi thats-life!

    Anyway, I think that celebs should be much more informed before making a statement.  Those first 3 months are so confusing and filled will doubts, erroneous information, and you head is just spinning - who do you believe?  The medical sites have you buried, the treatment centers are full of hope, and then there is all the info in the middle.

    3 months is not a lot of time to learn what is going on with you and it will make a much better presentatiom and there will be answers - accurate and informed answers -

    That is the best way to get it right!

    Hugs

    LowRider

  • thats-life-
    thats-life- Member Posts: 1,075
    edited October 2011

    We can tell our story...whether in public or here...but we are not psychic..we cant tell other women that their BC will reccur, or is still present. We can help with stats. We can educate to the best of our ability with recurrence rates and stage IV figures. That women are dx'd and living with stage IV at such young ages was a shock for me to discover a year ago...I think that is an important message. It can happen. But subtly informing, and trying to remember the confusion and panic when newly dx'd, is a responsibility i think we have forgotten in our anger and frustration at the lack of information out there. It is to the media, or on a broad scale that we should want to spread the word. 10 people jumping on a newbie who joins this site (or who we read about) is not the way to go in my opinion. It's too microfocused, and probably freaks them out. Im all for awareness, it's very important.

    Anecdotally,  In Australia there was an MBC group that's aim was to advocate for MBC, at the same time, another group started. The first group was very aggressive in it's approach, using shock value and angry political campaigns. the second took it's time evolving, bought in celebrities with BC, planned an educated non threatening approach to the public. The second group is thriving and now huge. The first group is virtually ignored in Aust. by mainstream media and has limited funding power. (sad but true).

  • MJLToday
    MJLToday Member Posts: 2,068
    edited October 2011

    I understand that she is scared, confused, not thinking straight, etc.Anyone with a serious cancer diagnosis would be.

    But that doesn't give her the right to spread false information.  You could argue that anyone who looks to celebrities for health care information is crazy, and probably be right LOL.  However it is just one more piece of "wrong info" out there that contributes to a nasty, blame-the-victim-even-if you-did-everything right kind of culture that we in the US have developed.

     As someone previously said, these celebs should just work with their publicist and doctors to make a short and sweet press release, then refuse to talk about it anymore unless and until they get their heads back on straight. Now I don't know this woman from Adam's off ox but if she is a reality TV show star, that's probably not how she operates LOL. 

    I'm not meaning to pick on the OP in the thread below, but my mind keeps coming back to how this person could be so ill-informed about BC.  I see things like this on BCO all the time-  magical thinking, I was diagnosed EARLY so nothing bad can happen to ME!

    http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/105/topic/776117?page=2#idx_33 

  • Beeb75
    Beeb75 Member Posts: 325
    edited October 2011

    Just an aside re: LtotheK saying you are the only early-stager under 40 that you know. Really? I could introduce you to a few...hundred. I am one, too. Younger women do tend to be diagnosed at later stages (because we don't get mammograms, so we have to find our own lumps or our doctors do, by which time they are bigger and therefore more likely to be node-positive.) BUT still the vast majority of under-40 diagnoses are early stage. It is a small percentage, maybe 10 percent max, in that age group that is Stage IV from the start. 

    Anyway, wishing the best to Giuliana. 

  • steelrose
    steelrose Member Posts: 3,798
    edited October 2011

    The word "cancer" is so terrifying, no matter what Stage you are.Thank God I didn't have a sit down interview after I was newly diagnosed as Mrs. Rancic did. I was in such denial and had a weird sort of hyper optimism (TERROR) after being diagnosed at Stage IV. Guiliana Rancic is a reality TV star, and I'm sure this has something to do with her speaking out so soon. But I'm sure she's struggling with her very public personality and the need for some privacy at this difficult time.  I agree that we shouldn't be so judgemental of these public people who are diagnosed... I saw the thread on Andrea Mitchell on here and had no idea what she said but I was getting worked up over the posts. I thought, Cured?! Yeah, right. There is no cure! I realized that my anger was more about me and my bad day than it was about Andrea Mitchell. This is a complicated and scary emotional ride as well. I agree that we should  have more compassion for all men and women who are newly diagnosed and are only trying to make sense of it themselves.

  • cookiegal
    cookiegal Member Posts: 3,296
    edited October 2011

    I heard a report, and the fact that she plans to try to get back to having a baby as soon as treatment is over is pretty confusing. I would assume she would be on tamox for a few years. Maybe not all DCIS people get it?

    I really don't hold her up to the standard that I hold Andrea Mitchell to. Giuliana is a game show contestant who has strung out a tv career, Mitchell is one of the most high profile female journalists in the world. 

  • hbcheryl
    hbcheryl Member Posts: 5,113
    edited October 2011

    Not only is Giuliana Rancic on a reality show but she hosts E news nightly and she and her husband have been very public about their wanting children and their invitro. The last scene of their reality show was the two of them going into the invitro clinic in Colorado and if she is having her surgery this week she would probably be off camera and a lot of speculation would be that she is pregnant or suffered another miscarriage, how would you feel if that was being written about you and in reality you're having cancer surgery. And let's not forget tabloids are always looking for "juicy" stories and you know someone would sell her out if she tried to keep quiet about her diagnosis. I saw her interview and she was distraught we all know that horrible stomach falling to the floor feeling I think she is just trying to have some sort of control rather than being "outed".

  • tkone
    tkone Member Posts: 511
    edited October 2011

    I'm so glad that I wasn't being judged with how I handled my diagnosis originally.  Everyone handles it their own way.  Some people throw themselves into research, some people stick their heads in the sand, some are totally optimistic and some are totally pessimistic.  I didn't know there was a "right" way to have breast cancer.  She is a human being with a career and a family and people who she loves....not all that different from any of us. 

    The only lesson that I have tried to pass on regarding Ms Rancic is that BC doesn't discriminate.  Being young, healthy, wealthy and famous didn't really help her out any more than it helped anyone else, did it?  She still got sucker punched just like we did.  I wish her the very best and hope that she finds a path that is comfortable for her.  I know without a shadow of a doubt that I didn't know anything about breast cancer besides what my surgeon told me when I was diagnosed.  If I waited until I knew everything about cancer to start talking to people, I would still be waiting.

    Welcome to the club Ms. Rancic.  I'm sorry you had to join, but send you only the best thoughts and prayers.

  • LizinKS
    LizinKS Member Posts: 65
    edited October 2011

    Let's be fair to Julianna. She's just been diagnosed and can't learn everything about her bc in a short time. I'm 3.5 years out and am still learning. I have read that she and her husband have struggled hard to conceive a child in the past  - in fact, I just heard she was on her third round of in-vitro and her fertility doc insisted she get a mammagram.  I'm sure she may also be worried that having a biological child may now not be possible (if she has estrogen-sensitive receptors. I also wonder if she took fertility drugs trying to conceive. Does anyone know if these drugs can cause breast cancer?)  We must keep her and others like her in our prayers. Imagine having not only to worry about your diagnosis, but also that the tabloids could print lies about her condition. It must make things so much harder.

  • Member_of_the_Club
    Member_of_the_Club Member Posts: 3,646
    edited October 2011

    I mean nothing but support for Ms, Rancicbut she did not have to sit for the interview and her statements join the steady stream of "good girls get their cancer caught early" talk that is out there.  I would bet that if you asked, 99% of the women will tell you that if you get regular mammograms, you will not die from breast cancer.  Somewhere along the lines we shifted responsibility to the women ourselves, away from the research.  Away from our responsibilty as a society to fund research and treatments.  Mammograms do save lives, but not as many as treatment.  For most women the die is cast by the biology of their particular cancer, not the timing of when its diagnosed.  

    I feel like we're being told to behave.  Get your mammograms and otherwise be quiet.  LIke its our individual prblem.

    Sorry.  Pinkgasm month is making me cranky. 

  • voraciousreader
    voraciousreader Member Posts: 7,496
    edited October 2011

    MEMBER OF THE CLUB  says....

    "Mammograms do save lives, but not as many as treatment.  For most women the die is cast by the biology of their particular cancer, not the timing of when its diagnosed."

    Yes! Yes! Yes!  Your quote should be SHOUTED!  Everytime I see or hear anyone talk about breast cancer, those thoughts are always front and center in my mind.  Perhaps if EVERYONE said those words when discussing breast cancer, perhaps there would already be a cure!

  • lrr4993
    lrr4993 Member Posts: 937
    edited October 2011

    "her statements join the steady stream of "good girls get their cancer caught early" talk that is out there.  . . .Somewhere along the lines we shifted responsibility to the women ourselves, away from the research. . . .I feel like we're being told to behave.  Get your mammograms and otherwise be quiet.  LIke its our individual prblem."

    I have to say that I do not get this message from any of her comments or any of the other of the promotions of early screening.   

    "Mammograms do save lives, but not as many as treatment.  For most women the die is cast by the biology of their particular cancer, not the timing of when its diagnosed."

    Is this backed up by anything?  I am not saying it is inaccurate, I just have never heard this before.  Treatment saves lives because it stops further growth of the cancer. . . in other words is gets the tumor out of your body and/or kills it before it can do damage (although not always, but in a lot of cases).  Isn't that the same concept behind the benefits of early screening?  Are you advocating that these women should be telling the general public that the timing does not matter; your fate is predetermined by the biology of the cancer?  

  • voraciousreader
    voraciousreader Member Posts: 7,496
    edited October 2011

    Irr4993.  Sadly, yes.  As my medical oncologist stated to me regarding my prognosis, despite having "favorable" characteristics, "With breast cancer, you never know."  While researchers have made great strides with treating breast cancer, it is still an elusive disease....

  • KerryMac
    KerryMac Member Posts: 3,529
    edited October 2011

    This is a very interesting article on the false belief that screening mammos save lives.

     http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2011/10/06/breast-cancer’s-false-narrative/

    Also as a Stage 3'er, I have unfortunately lost count of the number of other women I know who regularly went for mammos and their cancer was never picked up. Or, like me, found a lump, which was investigated and I was told it was not cancer. I think detection methods are very, very flawed.

  • lrr4993
    lrr4993 Member Posts: 937
    edited October 2011

    I certainly agree with your oncologist that you never know.  Sometimes small tumors generate huge spread.  But isn't that the exception rather than the rule?  In most cases, isn't early screening a benefit?  Don't the stage-based statistics back up the theory that, while there is no 100% guarantee, the earlier you find it the better?

    In my opinion, it would be incredibily irresponsible of any public figure to say that early screening is not important or not a guarantee.  All that does is discourage early screening.  I find it difficult to believe that any oncologist or other professional associated with cancer would agree that early screening is not important.  I know there are people on this board who are examples of the fact that early screening is not foolproof, but I am equally certain that there are many more on this board who wish their cancer had been caught earlier, myself included (I was diagnosed before 40; my almost 2 cm tumor was plainly visible on mammo done after lump found; wish i started them earlier) .

    I remain baffled by the notion that early screening and finding a cure are inconsistent.  Both are important and right now one of them is the only thing we have.   

  • lrr4993
    lrr4993 Member Posts: 937
    edited October 2011

    Kerry - just saw your post.  I completely agree that detection methods are flawed.  I now insist on an MRI even though my tumor was readily seen by mammo.  That said, I still believe early screening is important. Again, it is all we have right now.

  • KerryMac
    KerryMac Member Posts: 3,529
    edited October 2011

    I do think that many of these celebrities whose lives were "saved" by early detection, had cancers that would never have become invasive or life threatening.

    The problem is, some would have. So screening is the best tool we currently have, it is just very flawed, and |I do not think that point is ever made clear. I for one, never ever doubted my Dr. I just did not think they got things like that wrong. And they do. A lot.

  • lrr4993
    lrr4993 Member Posts: 937
    edited October 2011

    Sadly, all doctors in every field have the capability of being wrong.  And even more sadly, those errors can be the difference between life and death.  Medical science is not perfect; nor are the very human doctors who participate in it.  And sometimes it goes beyond human error to incompetence and complete lack of attention to detail.  

    My doctors have made some fairly embarrassing errors in the course of my treatment.  They have looked kind of stupid when I point it out to them.  Fortunately, none of it was anything terribly significant. 

  • Member_of_the_Club
    Member_of_the_Club Member Posts: 3,646
    edited October 2011

    Early screening is NOT a guaruntee, not even close.  Each breast cancer has its own personality.  On the one hand, you have the slow growing tumors that kind of limp along.  They can get big enough to feel but will still be cureable no matter the size.  Finding those on a mammogram before you would find it yourself won't make a difference.  Then there are the aggressive cancers, that shoot out even when they are very small.  These are the ones that are in the nodes when the primary is small, or they skip the nodes entirely (becuase of course cancer spreads through the bloodstream, not the lymphatic system, and the nodes are examined as surrogates becuase we can't examine teh blood for micromets) and go right into the bloodstream.  Finding these tumors on a mammogram will not prevent the spread.  Its already happened.

    Which leaves the middle, where mammograms probably do the most good.  These are the tumors for which time is the deciding factor and they are the minority of tumors.

    I believe every woman I know who developed metastatic disease got regular mammograms.   This is something the public doesn't understand.

    Mammograms have their place and I still get mine.  But we've elevated them to the be-all end-all of anti-breast cancer efforts and thats just wrong.  The more reserachers learn about the biology of breast cancer the more they understand that the die really is cast and thec ancers that are going to spread will do so from close to the beginning.  This is why treatment advances have saved lives.  They have gotten better at killing the stray cancer cells that are out there. 

  • voraciousreader
    voraciousreader Member Posts: 7,496
    edited October 2011

    Just finished reading Dr. H. Gilbert Welch's book, Over-Diagnosed: Making People Sick in The Pursuit of Health.

    http://www.amazon.com/Overdiagnosed-Making-People-Pursuit-Health/dp/0807022004

    I really can't get into discussing the book on this thread, but will only mention that he devotes chapters to breast cancer screening AND prostate screening that are evidence based and easy to understand.  The reviews of the book are excellent.  I STRONGLY RECOMMEND READING!

    BTW...Two weeks ago, there was a huge controversy over the need for prostate screening....  Having read the book, I get it!Kiss

  • apple
    apple Member Posts: 7,799
    edited October 2011

    i do not like plastic surgery.. I wish her well tho.

  • voraciousreader
    voraciousreader Member Posts: 7,496
    edited October 2011

    Irr4993...Doctors make mistakes all the time.  I always say that's why they "practice medicine."  The bottom line, like Member is saying is that it is the biology of the tumor cells that leads to death.  Without a doubt there is a place for DIAGNOSTIC mammograms and SCREENING mammograms for certain age groups....but there is a false sense of security in screening mammograms and the thought of "catching breast cancer early" and that's why I always say we are being hoodwinked. We deserve better.

  • LtotheK
    LtotheK Member Posts: 2,095
    edited October 2011

    I've been thinking about this all night.  I share Member's thoughts, and would like to add that young women, sadly, have a bigger responsibility to get it right given the prognosis around young women and breast cancer.

    I have stated on many threads I really get upset when women equate DCIS or LCIS with invasive cancers.  Yes, it's scary.  Yes, it sucks.  But it's rather akin to my friends telling me "well, I could get hit by a bus".  It's just not the same, and a public figure who "battles" DCIS and doesn't disclose their stats is shaping public opinion that the BC journey is easy.

    If celebs wish to go public, the most fair thing they could do is be frank about what kind of cancer and prognosis they have.  After all, I don't run around telling people my Stage 1 cancer is in any shape, way or form equivalent to what the Stage IV patients endure and face.

    Fear is a rather different thing when death may come knocking in 5 years.  DCIS patients have a 98% chance of 10 year disease-free survival.  When my aunt, who had DCIS found out I didn't have DCIS, rather, IDC, her reply, "oh."  And then crickets.  Any woman with an earlier stage cancer, believe me, gets what it means to have a more serious form of disease.

    I really hope Shannon's right, because it's high time we have a public figure talk about the reality of this disease.  I also hope it truly is DCIS for her.

  • LtotheK
    LtotheK Member Posts: 2,095
    edited October 2011

    Thanks for the link, Voraciousreader!

Categories