Adjvnt Therapy: Destroys or delays growth of stray BC cells?
Comments
-
Okay, so I'll start all over! Don't you hate when you have started a post, then lose it when trying to look something up? Carcharm.... Yes, my BS told me the same thing...about we DO have cancer cells in our bodies, but we can usually take care of them with our immune systems.
So the theory that "maybe it was because I took the pill" for so many years, or that "my Mother had this, so that's why I got it" really doesn't seem to matter..... And "why" did I get this at 72, and not 42? The answers can only be because of what is/was going on in MY body.
I am really working on my immune system....(Okay, here's where I lost my post...I was trying to look up "Chaga" so I could explain THAT one better, but now I won't.
) I am taking Grapeseed Extract, Turmeric, Vit. D3, DimPlus, Chaga, Centrum silver, CoQ10, Fishoil/Omega 3, Glucosamine, and Calcium... And that IS a lot to take, but I feel it makes up for the "protection" I lost when I stopped taking Tamoxifen.... I'd like to imagine that any cancer cells that are IN there, just wildly obliterate themselves when they see THAT cocktail coming!
Also, just going through all of this, and trying to figure out "what next" IS enough to drive us all nuts! ....... So we just keep on 'keepin on'.....
0 -
Elimar --- 1Athena1....I COULD probably live a very happy life while insane. However, the problem would be that my loved ones probably COULDN'T live with my insanity!
0 -
You know, I was thinking...SusansGarden started this thread with some very interesting questions and observations..... And no, we won't be able to answer those questions, because the Medical Community can't even answer them, BUT, we can at least discuss these topics, and maybe help ourselves figure out how we can help them and ourselves!
If a panel of Breast Surgeons, Oncologists & Radiologists were "listening in" & reading our posts, maybe THEN they could hear ALL of our concerns and problems, & know better how to deal with women that are going through the treatments.
Yikes! I might be onto something there..... but then again.......
0 -
Chevyboy...But the medical establishment IS listening...You read the ASCO journal article that I posted on this thread questioning how the data is gathered and understood...That article was just published and it tells me they ARE listening. Medicine is all about statistics and once they can quantify what they are doing CORRECTLY, then they will discover what is working and what isn't. Furthermore, I posted a link to the NY Times Gina Kolata series, The War on Cancer, which discusses the strides and LACK of strides the government has made during the last 40 years on cancer. In the series she questions how clinical trials are funded by the NIH. There are some terrific researchers out there in the trenches going blind as they look under a microscope and try to figure out what they see. Most of those researchers get little money or recognision...but they ARE affecting the possibility of new discoveries every day. From time to time, I email the researcher in England who studies MY rare type of breast cancer. I've become her and her colleagues pep squad. She and her colleagues study rare favorable histology breast cancers on the genetic level. If you read this entire thread so far, you also noticed that I posted Ian Brown's book which discusses catastrophic genetic disease and his devotion to his affected son. The book describes the most information I've ever seen devoted to genetics.
I would love if Susan's question could be answered tomorrow or the day after. But I know, from dealing with my husband's genetic metabolic muscular dystrophy for almost two decades, that what we think are "ureka" moments really aren't. They take many years of thought and research before the discoveries realize themselves.
So I will continue to believe based on the studies that I have posted here that the medical establishment is working feverishly to eradicate this terrible disease in if not my lifetime, then certainly in my daughter's lifetime. It is my hope that she NEVER has to deal with ever even having to THINK about this disease....
0 -
Oh, 1Athena!...I just want to mention because I recall that you mention your other illnesses, that I admire and respect you for going public about mental illness. My husband has had serious psychotic depressions through out his adulthood and I will say that getting the proper help for THAT illness was even more challenging than for dealing with his rare genetic metabolic muscular dystrophy. The cruel thing about his depression is that, like you mention, heretitary as well. In my husband's family, depression does NOT run, but GALLOPS. It would be so wonderful if there was a genetic test that could determine exactly what medication would work for depression first and always. There are many similiarites in trying to determine how to quantify what works best for breast cancer as there are for mental illness. And in my humble opinion, they are a lot closer to figuring out what treatments work best for breast cancer, then they are for mental illness. Thankfully, my husband is well now. It has been nothing short of a miracle since we found the proper treatment.
0 -
voraciousreader - Is it 'the boy in the moon' book? I ordered it from the library.0
-
Omaz. Yes. That is the name of the book. One of my dear friends began reading the book yesterday and told me that his writing is amazing. I hope you enjoy reading the book. If you are interested in Medical Genetics, I highly recommend watching the film, which is out on DVD and I got at my library, Extraordinary Measures with Brendan Frasier and Harrison Ford. It is a true story based on the lives of a family dealing with a catastrophic metabolic muscular dystrophy, Pompe's Disease. The children are patients of my husband's doctor. I've known about the family's struggle for many years. The reason why I recommend the film is because it shows the struggle of how researchers get their funding and how they toil in their labs. Equally important is watching the frustration and heartbreak of the families as they deal with the illnesses. Lorenzo's Oil is another favorite of mine.
0 -
1Athena1, just being humorous, as indicated by emoticon. Like a touch of insanity might be a good thing.
But I'm cool with continuing on with no levity if it's unwelcome. VR, I think you made the correct interpretation.0 -
You know what surprised me is the thought that cancer cells could be 'let lose' from the breast during biopsy/surgery. I didn't know that when I had my biopsy and it kindof bugs me. I read that cells released this way rarely 'take root' but still I was never offered an 'excisional biopsy'. Don't know if I would have taken it anyway. Does anyone know the science behind the idea of cells escaping from the breast during biospy or surgery? Is it true first, and is it dangerous?
0 -
Can a Simple Breast Biopsy Initiate Tissue Invasion by Intra-Ductal Cancer Cells?
Gina Kolata, the medical writer for the New York Times, recently discussed the theory that the normal cells surrounding a neoplastic lesion and the body's immuno-surveillance system can play a critical role in a tumor's invasive potential (see: Old Ideas Spur New Approaches in Cancer Fight). I have always believed this to be the case but this theory is now being taken more seriously in the research community. She cites a number of research studies that support this argument. One passage from her article relating to the possible adverse consequences of diagnostic breast biopsies caught my attention. I quote it below:
[Dr. Kornelia Polyak of Harvard Medical School]thought [that] dangerous D.C.I.S. [ductal carcinoma in-situ] might have genes different from those of D.C.I.S. that remains harmlessly enclosed in milk ducts. Dangerous D.C.I.S. would look like invasive breast cancer cells and harmless D.C.I.S. would not. But, she found, D.C.I.S. cells looked just like cells from aggressive breast cancers - gene expression patterns, mutations and cell maturation patterns were all the same...."Why is it D.C.I.S. if it looks like invasive cancer?" She looked at cells surrounding D.C.I.S. The first thing she noticed was that when D.C.I.S. broke free of a milk duct, the duct's outer layer had broken down. It could be that the duct falls apart because the cancer is bursting out. Or it could be that the cancer is escaping the duct because the outer layer disintegrated - which is what her research showed. As long as the milk duct is intact, D.C.I.S. cells cannot escape. She also found that when breast tissue is injured, wound healing can destroy the crucial outer layer of ducts, allowing D.C.I.S. to escape. That is what happens in animals, and it is her hypothesis that it happens in humans. It made her ask about biopsies. They are unavoidable, as she knows, because she recently had one herself. And they cannot be a huge factor in causing cancer or millions of women would be getting breast cancer at the site of their biopsies - and they are not. Still, she worries. "Frankly, this has not been studied extensively," Dr. Polyak said. "People don't like to bring it up."
The question that is being asked above is whether a breast biopsy, initiated for the purpose of cancer diagnosis, can, in and of itself, promote the development of an invasive cancer on the basis of the inflammation and healing process that inexorably follows all biopsies. The basic idea is that these processes induce porosity of the basement membranes of breast ducts and enable the previously contained DCIS cells to escape into the surrounding tissue. Obviously, work will continue on this sequence of events to determine, first, whether this is a valid hypothesis and, second, whether the process can be blocked with, say, anti-inflammatory drugs. At the present time, breast biopsies are unavoidable because surgical pathology examination is the gold standard of breast diagnosis. However, in-situ techniques for the microscopic examination of tissue are rapidly being developed. Molecular imaging is also improving. All of these emerging diagnostic techniques may at some time be able to provide reliable diagnoses without disruption of the breast tissue.
Posted by Bruce Friedman on January 14, 2010 at 08:53 AM in Lab
0 -
you can also do a google search for "needle track seeding."
0 -
Abstract
Needle track seeding has been
recognized as a possible, albeit rare, complication of breast core needle
biopsy. The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of needle tract seeding
of breast cancer from cytological results derived from core needle wash
material. The study included biopsies of 207 breast cancers performed using
ultrasonographically guided 18-gauge core needles. Each core needle without
exposed sample notch was washed in saline solution immediately after removing
the needles. Cytology derived from core wash material was performed by saline
solution lavage of the fragments using a cytocentrifuge. The cytological
diagnoses were divided into five categories: benign, atypical/indeterminate,
suspicious/probably malignant, malignant and unsatisfactory.
Atypical/indeterminate, suspicious/probably malignant and malignant categories
were considered to represent positive cases of needle track seeding of breast
cancer, whereas benign and unsatisfactory categories were counted as negative
cases. Cytological diagnoses of the 207 lesions were as follows: 26 lesions
(12%) were benign, 18 lesions (9%) were atypical/indeterminate, 37 lesions (18%)
were suspicious/probably malignant, 79 lesions (38%) were malignant, and 47
lesions (23%) were unsatisfactory. The incidence of positive cases of cytology
derived from core wash material was 65% (134/207). The 25% frequency of positive
cases of invasive lobular carcinoma was significantly lower than the frequencies
of DCIS (74%) and invasive ductal carcinoma (69%) (P = 0.001 and
P < 0.01). The frequency of positive cases in the multiple passes
group was 75%, which was slightly, although not significantly, higher than the
66% frequency in the single pass group (P = 0.3). In conclusion, the
incidence of positive cases of cytology derived from ultrasonographically guided
breast core needles' wash material was 65%. The clinical significance is
debatable; however, there may be a theoretical risk of local recurrence if the
tract is not excised or radiotherapy not given.0 -
I am almost certain that my cancer spread thanks to the needle biopsy I had, based on the way in which
1) The breast changed and
2) The fact that my lymph nodes felt more swollen after that.
I had IDC, so it did not change anything materially, but it did make surgery more urgent in my mind. There is no way to prove my hunch, of course, but the stock response that persists in claiming that needle biopsies cannot spread cancer needs to be revised - as do so many stock responses in cancer.
VR - I do think that researchers are beginning to ask uncomfortable questions about cancer that need to be asked. A lot of the prevailing conventional wisdom about "early detection saves lives" "current treatment represents leaps and bounds" "we are winning the war...." is so embedded in the cancer culture that research which calls into question current protocols is rejected by patients and many doctors as well as cancer spokespeople like Marissa Weiss and the American Cancer Society. This fear (not greed, not evil) is to me the biggest obstacle in our adopting practices that will create an atmosphere friendly to looking outside the box and eventually finding the cure. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment need to be recognized as hazards and not simply as overkill.
0 -
These articles are very interesting. It leaves me wondering if physical trauma to our breasts can cause the tissue to break down and allow the Cancer to spread. In my case several months before the BC was found a child in my class punched me in that breast. I remember there was extreme pain at the time, and a dull pain there after. In fact it was the dull pain that made me decide I needed to go early for my yearly mammogram.
0 -
voracious - thanks for posting those studies, very interesting. I have always thought it was curious that most DCIS is grade 3 and yet not invasive. That kindof falls into the 'intact duct' observation. Cancer is such a sucky disease.0
-
1Athena1...Have you noticed that the Autism community was recently shaken by a huge quake and now has to rethink how research is developed and funded? That controversy...which started at the respected British Medical Journal...should be reminded of at every medical convention and taught in every medical school. Tragic to think that there are STILL parents who believe vaccinations gave their children autism...And to think of all the money that went into that research and all the children who lost their lives because they weren't vaccinated.
0 -
That non-vaccination issue in the UK is still a big problem from what I read. Some still believe it in spite of all the media.
0 -
Voracious.... I read your last article that you posted, again....That Gina Kolata wrote about maybe some types of Breast Cancer ..
."The first thing she noticed was that when D.C.I.S. broke free of a milk duct, the duct's outer layer had broken down. It could be that the duct falls apart because the cancer is bursting out. Or it could be that the cancer is escaping the duct because the outer layer disintegrated - which is what her research showed. As long as the milk duct is intact, D.C.I.S. cells cannot escape. She also found that when breast tissue is injured, wound healing can destroy the crucial outer layer of ducts, allowing D.C.I.S. to escape. That is what happens in animals, and it is her hypothesis that it happens in humans. It made her ask about biopsies. "
So from what I understand about this, it is possible to have cancer cells, but until your breast is somehow injured, they might never cause a problem.... That makes sense to me...Maybe that IS possible. I remember about 60 years ago, one of my Mother's friends got hit in her breast with some kind of rod in a factory......She developed breast cancer, and in those days, your chances were pretty slim of living very long..... So this theory would make sense.
I know the medical profession has come VERY far, in how they view Breast Cancer, and what they can do about it. And if our bodies would co-operate during treatments, and if each of us were the same genetic makeup, we could all be NED for the rest of our lives. But there are just so many variables..... And that's why we are here....
Another question I have is.... Can a tumor be treated first with Chemo, to see if it goes away, and NOT have to have breast cancer surgery? And can this be done targeting lymph nodes as well?
0 -
voraciousreader and lago- not a good idea to believe everything you read- be it about autism or bc-lots of media...truth somewhere in the middle...just like bc. speaking from personal experience here. in both cases.
0 -
Annettek... Have you followed the autism debacle? The BMJ retracted the article and the doctor ultimately lost his license. Despite years of research no one was able to duplicate his research. Years went by and many people still jumped on the bandwagon believing that vaccinations caused autism. The final result was that money was wasted and lives were lost that could easily have been saved. Furthermore, do you know what the single most important discovery that has increased people's lives around the world? Vaccinations.
0 -
VR - The firat article claiming a link between vaccines and autism was in The Lancet, of all places. As was a study claiming that ADHD was caused by foods. The pre-eminent, peer-reviewed journal articles are not immune to bad science.
And I interpret Lago and VR as expressing precisely the skepticism of never automatically believing what you read.
I predict that the day will come when researchers look back at current adjuvant protocols with horror.
Scuence ultimately depends on human folly. Until the late nineties, it was possible to read, in the web site of the American Psychiatric Association, that some researchers believed that schizophrenia was caused by childhood trauma. It had previously been linked to homosexuality. Bunkum takes time to destroy.0 -
yes, voracious, I am familiar with it all.
It makes me wonder how many people who do not have BC read about all of the sure causes and cures for BC and wonder why we question anything? I mean it is written about quite extensively by professionals.
And I am well aware of the impact of vaccinations. Both positive and negative.
0 -
On the autism-vaccines thing: the snake oil salesman who continued to peddle that theory despite the evidence that his findings were false lost his license (or some such thing) and has now moved to the US and has a following in Texas. Bad medicine takes time to fade.
0 -
Annettek... Sadly in the case of autism, the researchers who were correct were not to be believed for a very long time. We all should remember THAT.
0 -
The man in question is a kook seeking fame and fortume, trading on people's fears (again the parellels to BC are striking). Some of the theories are not.
0 -
I have wondered the same as Chevyboy...if a tumor disappears entirely from neo-adjuvant chemo, does the surgery still always take place? What is the reasoning on this?
0 -
1Athena1... the autism study by Wakefield appeared in the BMJ. Not much different than the Lancet. Equally prestigious.
0 -
hard to call that one Elimar. another one of those "huhs"?
Voraciousreader- I tend not to discuss autism with anyone who does not know what they are talking about beyond what they have read when they come in with a postition of knowing. It is fruitless and frustrating.
Since this is a BC forum, lets agree to disagree and get back to BC and its many conundrums...how about THAT?
0 -
Speaking of peer review, I will tell you all a sidebar story. With my husband's rare genetic metabolic muscular dystrophy, there are very few researchers studying it and fewer clinicians treating patients with it and even fewer researcher/clinicians. Sooooo.. When my husband's doctor wishes to publish something... He needs his colleagues for peer review. Do you know how many people we are talking about? Now let's say one of his peers are competing for the same research dollars.... Do any of you know where I am going with this????? That's why I said that Gina Kolata article about how the NIH funds cancer studies was so important to read. Want to get me started? Ask me about the committee that the government formed to create the cholesterol guidelines and then ask me what I think about whether or not clinicians use them!!! Yikes! Oh! My blood pressure is going through the roof right now as I type.....
0 -
Annettek... The point I am making is that we depend on all of these published studies to make informed treatment making decisions. And if the studies run counterintuitive to what we believe, then it is incumbent upon us to take notice even if it means we have to move out of our comfort zone.
0
