New Yorker Article

Options
Leatherette
Leatherette Member Posts: 448
edited September 2017 in Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After

Interesting article about cancer, chemo and mets:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/09/11/canc...


· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • Beatmon
    Beatmon Member Posts: 1,562
    edited September 2017

    Very interesting. Thank you for postin

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Traveltext
    Traveltext Member Posts: 2,089
    edited September 2017

    This is a very long, very interesting and very important article. A must read.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ErenTo
    ErenTo Member Posts: 343
    edited September 2017

    Thank you for posting this. Very long, but interesting. Sinc my diagnosis I so wish I had gone into cell biology :) fascinating stuff

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Susug
    Susug Member Posts: 193
    edited September 2017

    Wow! very interesting article ... I read this early this morning haven't been able to get this out of my mind.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Falconer
    Falconer Member Posts: 1,192
    edited September 2017
    I felt bad while reading this article, of course, like why hadn't I done a better job of making my body inhospitable to cancer growth? Why was I the perfect host for this disease? I mean, I know some of it- overworked, stressed, sick most of the winter prior to my dx w various wicked infections to my sinuses, etc. overtaxed immune system? I am fascinated by the theory that the whole ecology of the person can stimulate or thwart growth. But then I think of childhood cancer and my head spins. And I'm back to the answer that it's a crapshoot.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ShetlandPony
    ShetlandPony Member Posts: 4,924
    edited September 2017

    Thank you, leatherette, for alerting us to a very interesting article. This article is about more than just chemo and mets. It is about the seed & soil idea, and talks about how host characteristics may matter as much as tumor characteristics. It's an ecology. The author uses the infestation of Lake Michigan with foreign mussels as an analogy. He calls it a metastasis.

    Falconer, to say that the host (us) plays a part in the spread of cancer is not to say that we have complete control of it. Although we have some control of our lifestyle, we probably don't even know what all the factors are. And there are many factors we can't control such as our own genetic makeup, or all the toxins in our environment. I think that to say we don't understand all the factors does not mean it is a total crapshoot, it just means we don't have all the information. And yet, there is also a totally random aspect to cancer, from chance genetic mutations during cell division. All of this is to say, please do not blame yourself. We can only do what we can do.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Traveltext
    Traveltext Member Posts: 2,089
    edited September 2017

    Nice summary Shetland. I can't help thinking that this research co-relates with the Johns Hopkins researchers' conclusions about the role that luck plays in a diagnosis. Really, the more we look for logic in this dreadful disease, the more we find that other factors dominate. And, yes, this reinforces the fact that we shouldn't blame ourselves for getting breast cancer.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ShetlandPony
    ShetlandPony Member Posts: 4,924
    edited September 2017

    Traveltext, thank you for that link; the research you refer to is exactly what I was thinking of. So here is where the NYT article comes in. Unlucky, random mutations are at the root of the majority of cancers, because sometimes they take over, like the mussels in Lake Michigan. But sometimes they don't take over, like the same mussels in their native country where they are not so problematic. The two places are different, and understanding the lakes' ecology is the first step to answering the question of why the mussels behave differently. So the question is, why would a mutation be relatively harmless in one person, while it would get out of hand in another person? How is the "environment" different? The author of the NYT article, I believe, is advocating that scientists work on the problem of cancer from this side, from the soil so to speak, as well as from the other side, the seed (cell mutation). That is a hopeful thought because it could open up new ways to prevent and treat as we gain more understanding.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ShetlandPony
    ShetlandPony Member Posts: 4,924
    edited September 2017

    True, it does seem common sense, BosumBlues. The thing is that it was 1889 when Stephen Paget first articulated the seed and soil hypothesis, but the seed has gotten so much more attention than the soil from researchers. I am glad to see that the scientific community is thinking more about the soil now. And not just the microenvironment of the organ to which cancer metastasizes, which was Paget's focus, but the whole person. It gives me hope that more and more we can have holistic cancer treatment and/or prevention that is evidence-based. For example, the role of inflammation is more understood, and how diet, exercise, and stress-reduction could be important in that regard. But also there might be host conditions that we don't have lifestyle control of, but that could be addressed with new kinds of drugs, once they learn enough about what those conditions are and research how to manipulate them.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Susug
    Susug Member Posts: 193
    edited September 2017

    this article fascinates me I have read it 3 times. It's a lot of information packed into one article. Every time I read it I pick up on something I didn't the first time I read it. I don't feel like I did something to cause my cancer. I never have felt that way. This gives me hope. It baffles me that so much money is given to breast cancer research and we are we're we are or not where we should be.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Traveltext
    Traveltext Member Posts: 2,089
    edited September 2017

    Certainly nobody in my cohort is going to a naturopath after diagnosis, since we die pretty quickly if we don't get timely, tri-modal, neo-adjuvant treatment. It is the advances in chemo drugs that allow surgery to take place along with refinements in radiation protocols and the improvement in hormone blocking drugs that gives us ever longer remissions.

    As someone with a genetic predisposition to bc, I often wonder why I got it and my three brothers with identical healthy diets and exercise regimens don't. Then there's my friend down the road with lower stage bc who had a lumpectomy and then did nothing but Gerson treatment. She's still OK three years on.

    We are pouring buckets of money into bc awareness and while earlier diagnosis is helping lower the death rate, there's still there's no cure.

    IMO, there's no such thing as common sense with bc and certainly it's not necessarily the host that makes the environment conducive to the disease. These articles show me that we are unlikely to ever find a cure for all of us in the bc waggon because our individual biologies are so disparate and because our body's immune system just can't always cope with all that comes along.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Susug
    Susug Member Posts: 193
    edited September 2017

    all those posinous treatments knock our immune systems down. Can't win for losing. frustratin

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Traveltext
    Traveltext Member Posts: 2,089
    edited September 2017

    Yes, the poisons knock down your immune system, but it bounces back and holds off a recurrence for an indeterminate time. Correct, nobody wins. In fact, we either die with the disease or of it.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • marijen
    marijen Member Posts: 3,731
    edited September 2017

    So I heard the death rate from breast cancer has improved because ncluding DCIS numbers in the formula. FROM CDC

    Note: The word "significantly" below refers to statistical significance. 2012 is the latest year for which data are available.

    Incidence Trends

    From 2003 to 2012 in the United States, the incidence rate of breast cancer—

    • Remained level among women.
    • Remained level among white women.
    • Increased significantly by 0.8% per year among black women.
    • Remained level among Hispanic women.
    • Remained level among American Indian/Alaska Native women.
    • Increased significantly by 1.1% per year among Asian/Pacific Islander women.

    Mortality Trends

    From 2003 to 2012 in the United States, the death rate from breast cancer—

    • Decreased significantly by 1.9% per year among women.
    • Decreased significantly by 1.9% per year among white women.
    • Decreased significantly by 1.4% per year among black women.
    • Decreased significantly by 1.3% per year among Hispanic women.
    • Decreased significantly by 3.4% per year among American Indian/Alaska Native women.
    • Decreased significantly by 1.4% per year among Asian/Pacific Islander women.

    Data source: Ryerson AB, Eheman CR, Altekruse SF, Ward JW, Jemal A, Sherman RL, Henley SJ, Holtzman D, Lake A, Noone AM, Anderson RN, Ma J, Ly KN, Cronin KA, Penberthy L, Kohler BA. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2012, featuring the increasing incidence of liver cancer Cancer 2016;122(9):10.1002/cncr.29936.

    Note: Hispanic origin is not mutually exclusive from race categories (white, black, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native).

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Categories