Giuliana Rancic early stage BC

Another truly great book to read is John Abramson, MD's Overdosed America that was published a few years ago.  These two books are powerful, enlightening books!  You'll notice, the Welch book is being recommended by the editors at JAMA  AND the New England Journal of Medicine.  Sidney Wolfe, MD has a blurb on the cover of the Welch book. 

Here is what I do not understand about this debate, which I have engaged in 4 times now - it is the same discussion every time a public figure announces a diagnosis and has the nerve to be positive about her prognosis.  No one - not Komen, not the public figures, not any doctor I have spoken to, not anything I have read - has said that early screening is a guarantee.  The message simply is that early screening INCREASES YOUR CHANCES (this is statistical analysis, which is all cancer can operate off of; not a statement of fact about individual patients) of a good prognosis.  To my knowledge, based on extensive reading and research, this is an accurate statement. 

I fail to see how anyone is hoodwinked by this message.  In fact I think this message serves the exact purpose it was intended to serve - this is a serious disease that is best acted on promptly.  Some people are reading into these messages their personal experience with cancer, which is understandable.  However, the message is not geared towards us.  We know the pertinent information more than anyone other than the doctors (and that is sometimes debatable).  It is geared toward people who do not have a clue.  I was one of those people a little over a year ago when a lump popped up out of no where.  I was 39 and had never had a mammogram.  I did not know at that time what the survival statistics were.  I did not know about staging.  I did not know there were different types of breast cancer.  I did not know about grading of cancer.  All I knew is I had a lump, a lump can be cancer, cancer can kill if it grows out of control, and that time was of the essence.  Because of that very limited knowledge gleaned from the pink campaigns that are so maligned on this board, I immediately saw a doctor and made them go thru the usual diagnostic steps with an unusual sense of urgency.  Because I believed in the message of "the sooner the better" only 17 days passed from my first appointment with a doctor about the lump to my lumpectomy.  I had a nasty tumor - my onco said it was unusual in its high level of differentiation, the Ki-67 was very high (98), triple negative and metaplastic.  I am painfully aware that, despite catching at what we believe is stage 1, it could quickly move to stage 4.  Nonetheless, I am glad I caught it when I did, wish I had caught it earlier, and in no way believe that my outcome would be the same even if it was caught a year later. 

I used this analogy two debates ago - take the slogan "seatbelts save lives."  The reality is that seatbelts increase your chances of surviving a car accident, but depending on the many varied circumstances surrounding the accident, you may nonetheless be killed.  Do you really expect the organizations who are promoting seatbelt usage to say "seatbelts may save lives if you are lucky"?  Because that is what I hear you arguing about early screening.  The message is is "early screening saves lives", but the reality is that in increases your changes of survival, but depnding on the many varied characteristics of your tumor and your body, it may not.  But in the end, isn't the best policy in terms of the general population to whom these messages are geared to find it early?

That is all from me.  I have to get to work and I find this debate exhausting. 

KerryMac -- awesome article.  Thanks for finding and sharing it.  I'm bookmarking if for sure.

LOL.  I give up.  You are right.  Mammograms are not worth the time or money and early detection is BS.  Spread the word.

I don't think anyone said mammograms are worthless.  I still have them.  I was responsing to your earlier post in which you wrote that it is irresponsible to say early detection through mammograms is not a guaruntee.  Thats where I got the not a guaruntee line, from your earllier post.

Your 17 days probably didn't matter that much.  7 days, or 37 days, your outcome is unlikely to have been affected.  Breast cancer doesn't moce that fast. In fact, women often use that time between diagnosis and surgery to get 2nd opinions and it is time well spent.  They probably get more from teh 2nd opinions than they would by rushing into surgery.

I'm not terribly concerned about the "cost" of mammograms in terms of false positives, though I probably should be.  Its happened to me several times.  I just wish they did more for us.  There are subcategories of people for whom they are particularly effective.  But I think we've done so well with the message that everyone needs to get mammograms that we've lost sight of the larger issue which is that everyone needs better treatment. 

Tracy - Thank you for getting it.  I agree on all points.

Sorry, I didn't realize this thread has gone so viral!  Beeb, yes, I am the only Stage 1 patient under 40 I know.  Every woman in my clinic, every friend of a friend, and two close friends with the disease under 40 have all been Stage 2 or higher.

Who cares what my personal experience is.  Go to Young Survivors Coalition, the stats speak for themselves.

I find it ironic that we are talking about how horrible it is to criticize a celeb, and meanwhile, people are being hostile right here.  I don't remember being hostile to any individuals.  I'm asking for accountability.

Moderators,

Can we move this thread out of the Stage IV section? Whoever this woman is, she is early stage, almost all of the posters are early stage. I find the hostility upsetting.

Thanks for the consideration,

*susan* 

My 1st ever screening mammo at 40 showed nothing. 1.5 years layer, the diagnostic mammo showed that big evil black lump in all its ugliness.

Would it be preferable if Guiliana did her interviews while sobbing and talking about how she was afraid she might die and never have the children she so desperately wants, to miss out on all the experiences her young life still has ahead if it? Because I'm sure her mind has gone there. But these are not things one shares with strangers.

I've read comments on other sites about her, and people are cruel enough to be talking about how "ugly" she is, even though they know she's got cancer. I can just imagine the heartless comments if she broke down on screen.

RE: Infertility drugs. I took them. Lots of them. My last IVF protocol (succesful) was one that pumped massive amounts of estrogen into my body to get it to produce more eggs. And it worked - my previous attempts only netted 3-4 poor quality eggs, this last one got 9. Plus I took meds to supress my immune system so it wouldn't reject the embryo. Out of the 9 eggs, we only got one live baby.

Now that I've got breast cancer, I do have to wonder about the connection. I'm triple negative, but there seems to be no other risk factors, other than Carribean descent. The big question - If I knew then what I know now - would I still do it? Is my wonderful son that I worked and struggled so long for worth it? That's a tough one... I love him so much. But it would be awful to leave him motherless.

My daughter DVRs her show and I watch it from time to time. I know it is Hollywood and I try to refrain from opinions of people I don't know... But I think she and her husband are the real deal! As I said earlier, it is so upsetting to me to see all these young women being diagnosed. AND if she ever trolls this site, I am sure every one of us wishes her well on this journey that none wish they ever joined!

LtotheK....I see what you are saying. But Stage 1 is not the only early stage. Stage 2 is also early stage, and some experts also include Stage 3a as early stage...there's some debate about that, I think. But at the very least, all the Stage 2 women you know are also early stagers.

You said earlier in this thread: "I have made it my job to tell the world that women under 40 are often stage 4 out of the gates."

That's not true (unless "often" = 10 percent of the time) While I know that there are many young women diagnosed at Stage IV, and many others who progress to it, they still make up a fairly small percentage of all the breast cancer cases in this population. 

Thankfully, most young women diagnosed with breast cancer do not die of the disease.

LtotheK, I also think you should be careful about spreading misinformation and being accountable.  As I said to you recently in a post you stated some information regarding DCIS that is inaccurate.  You have quite alot of anger towards people with DCIS and I am sorry for that.  But I for one am a bit put off by your many posts that make is sound like people with dcis are insensitive towards people of different stages.  Honestly I don't see that here, although I do see more posts the other way around.  If people are like that in your personal life that is sad, but lumping all of us together is not beneficial to new posters that come here scared at any stage.  You feel I don't/didn't have cancer, that is your view and you are entitled to it.  I have been to multiple doctors that have said otherwise, I will take their diagnosis over yours.  Just an FYI, unfortunately people with DCIS can/do reoccur with dcis or higher stages that is a fact!

I just don't understand the hostility :0(  I too think this topic should be moved. 

Cheryl

Tell me to mind my own business, as I was "only stage 0" but may i please ask the mods to quickly delete this whole thread? Homely?? Certainly this is a mean-spirited way to refer to this young woman about to have her whole life changed. I am, for thefirst time ashamed of some of the women who posted under this thread. I hope the mods rmove this and that Giuliana Rancic didn't read any of it. I applaud her openness and positive thinking. It will get her farther tham the nastiness posted here. Nan

I think that it is sad that everyone is so negative towards her.  I remember when I was first told that I had breast cancer I was told you are young you will bet this.  The odds of this having spread anywhere else is like growing a nose on your forehead.  So when I told people at first I told them all that my odds were really good.  Then a week later I found out I was stage IV.  I think that everyone showed change the topic to something else and not even include her in the topic.  I wish everyone would look back at when they were first diagnosed and remember how hopeful they were.  I wish her the best. 

I've read all of these discussions.  Fact is the Medical Community still needs some kind of screening tool to detect bc, especially since younger women are being diagosed with bc these days.  There's over 200,000 a year of people being diagnosed with bc. 

 Right now, all we have is the mammogram to start with (some use the digital mammogram which is supposed to be more efficient).  An ultrasound usually is a follow-up tool.  If my doctor told me I had bc from one test; I would not believe him.  Thankfully he confirmed diagnosis comparing many tests for complete diagnosis and I was stage IV from the start.

 We can only relate by our own personal experiences and those of people who are close to us who have bc. Screening seems a natural course to stop people from dying of bc; but we need to find out why so many of us are getting bc.

Giuliana is a person first, 2nd a celebrity and she's a very scared person right now.  I believe it's her compassion to make sure every woman get's screened so they don't have to go through what she's going through right now.

Terri