Radiation or NOT?

I have been saying NO to rads for over 2 years despite the hard sell, fear tactics and claims that there is very little harm, damage, discomfort, pain and short & long-term repercussions from radiation treatment.  Most oncologists, radiologists and surgeons tout only benefits and statistics of lowering DCIS recurrence. One major point I discovered that they fail to tell us is that our chance of an invasive recurrence is actually higher.

According to  an article published in the Journal of Surgical Oncology 2007 by MELVIN J. SILVERSTEIN, MD and MICHAEL D. LAGIOS, MD entitled Should all Patients Undergoing Breast Conserving Therapy for DCIS Receive Radiation Therapy? No. One Size Does Not Fit All: An Argument Against the Routine Use of Radiation Therapy for All Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast  Who Elect Breast Conservation:

More invasive recurrences among irradiated patients: In our experience and the experience of others, the percentage of invasive recurrence after radiation therapy is greater than 50%. After excision alone, it is approximately 34%. In addition, the median time to recurrence is twice as long for the irradiated patients. If a higher percentage of recurrences among irradiated patients are invasive, this could lead to a higher mortality rate.”

Posted in Health | 2 Comments

GREAT NEWS — Oncotype DX Test Results!

Dr. Laura Esserman called me with some GREAT NEWS this evening. My Oncotype DX Test Score results came back as LOW RISK  for invasive breast cancer! She said I have a 10% risk of invasive cancer at 8 years — not much different than the average woman who has a lifetime risk of 12%.

For those interested in learning more about the Oncotype DX for DCIS Test:

http://www.oncotypedx.com/en-US/Breast/HealthcareProfessional/DCIS.aspx

Posted in Health | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

EVERY WOMAN NEEDS TO READ THIS….

What you always wanted to know about breast screening published by The Nordic Cochrane Centre 201: http://www.cochrane.dk/screening/mammography-leaflet.pdf

I have been to several Breast Cancer Centers over the last two years and I have been wondering why they all seem to be ignoring the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation for mammograms. Their recommendation suggests women between the ages of 40 and 49 should NOT necessarily get regular breast cancer screenings and that 50- to 59-year-old women should have them every two years instead of every year, as the American Cancer Society recommends.

See full Good Morning America story from Nov. 2009 here: “Task Force Responds to Mammogram Controversy”:  http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/HealthyLiving/us-preventative-services-task-force-member-timothy-wilt/story?id=9124113#.T2ElAhGvLTo

Ironically, I thought I was doing the right thing when I started having mammograms at age 40. But was I really just putting myself in harm’s way?  After my 4th mammogram at age 44, just after these new guidelines came out, I was in perfect health and had no signs or symptoms of anything wrong. I was called back for a 2nd diagnostic mammogram due to calcifications appearing on a mammogram…. and thus began my journey into the world of breast cancer. I was made into a breast cancer patient and yet I did not actually have breast cancer. Please see “Donna’s Journey” https://dcis411.com/donnas-journey/.

I believe I am one of thousands of women who are referred  to as being “over-diagnosed” and “over-treated” due to mammograms and the current “standard of care” for treatment of DCIS.  Thankfully I had some good sense and excellent guidance to help steer me away from the fear-driven breast cancer industry and extremely harmful and horrific treatments. It is appalling to think healthy women like me with low grade DCIS are being made into cancer patients and are being scared into amputating and radiating their breasts. I know. I was told by several doctors that this was my next step due to positive or close margins following 3 surgeries over two years. I was told my options were 6 weeks of daily radiation or a mastectomy. Had I not spent countless hours being counseled by “alternative” health advocates and researching all the facts around DCIS, breast cancer and mammograms, I may have succumbed to the fear.

We must continue to question everything and investigate before making any decisions about breast cancer screening or treatment.

It’s just a matter of time before women wake up and take charge of their bodies and realize the truth about mammograms….

Mammography Screening: truth, lies and controversy is a new book from Peter C Gøtzsche, Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis, Director of The Nordic Cochrane Centre and Chief Physician, Rigshospitalet and the University of Copenhagen, takes an evidence-based, critical look at the scientific disputes and the information provided to women by governments and cancer charities …with remarkable results. http://evenstarsexplode.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/press-release/

Doctors Prove This Test Can Give Healthy People Cancer:  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/14/the-medical-industrys-most-atrocious-assault-against-women.aspx?SetFocus=commentfocus#

Posted in Health | Tagged | 2 Comments

Mammograms???

I feel I am one of thousands of women who have been over-treated and harmed by mammograms. I believe our society and most breast cancer organizations put way too much emphasis, money and marketing on mammograms and not enough on breast cancer PREVENTION and improving current treatments for those with harmless pre-cancerous conditions and especially for those with very aggressive cancers. I am simply learning as I go and I share what I believe will help awaken women to know all sides and all the facts. There is another story besides the excellent and highly successful marketing of mammograms…..

Please watch/listen closely from 2:56 – 5:02

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-aYxu4Uys0&feature=related

Here is the link and excerpt from Suzanne Somer’s blog 12/9/2009 in which Dr. Blaylock responds to Suzanne’s blog post “Mammograms – Yes, No, Maybe So?”

Dr. Russell Blaylock on Mammograms and “Testiculograms”

Dr. Blaylock:

“What women who defend mammograms do not appreciate is that many are developing breast cancer not naturally, but because of the mammograms themselves. The test they defend is what is killing a significant number of them. We went through this in the 70’s with routine chest x-ray studies; after several years of such screening they realized that it was not detecting enough pathology to justify the expense, but many physicians also recognized that it posed a significant radiation-induced cancer risk as well.

They will never admit to the radiation (mammogram) breast cancer link because that will tell women that many of them developed breast cancer because of the screening itself and that could severely damage the cancer establishment. And it could result in a massive number of lawsuits.

Why don’t we advocate “testiculograms” (I made this term up) on men – that is placing their testicles into a “panini” type of press machine, then radiating them – once a year starting at age 20. After all, it may save the lives of hundreds of men every year! We could even sell pink oval shaped decals to promote yearly “testiculograms” and have marathons to draw support. And we might even promote yearly CT scans of the prostate for men—that would save thousands from prostate cancer—if we apply the same flawed way of thinking we use for mammograms. Let’s see how many men show up for their yearly testiculogram or prostate scan. Just a thought.

As for the data on the benefits of mammograms, 10 of the largest studies seeking to determine if routine mammograms indeed prevented death from breast cancer – studies which included a half-million women from Canada, USA, Scotland and Sweden – all found that doing mammograms from age 40 to 49 did not reduce breast cancer deaths at all for 9 years of the survey. Nine of ten of the studies also found no death reductions over the next 10 to 14 years of observations. When they pooled all the results from all 10 of the trials, they found no reductions in breast cancer deaths during an observation period of 14 years.

When they looked at screening beginning at age 50, 3 found a statistically significant reduction, 4 found non-significant reductions and 1 found no reductions in breast cancer deaths at all. When they looked at women who started mammogram screenings at age 50 years and followed them for the next 20 years (age 70), they found a reduction in breast cancer deaths of 1 out of every 270 women (a 0.37% incidence of reduced deaths).

The vast majority of breast cancers found in women below age 50 are DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) and 50% never progress. These women will undergo unnecessary biopsy, breast surgery and, for many, radiation and chemotherapy.

One must also consider two other factors – false negatives and false positives. Women with breast cancer who have a false negative mammogram constitute some 5-20%, with the highest number being younger women. This means that 20% of younger women will have breast cancer that will not be picked up by the mammogram.

Mammograms expose women to a significant amount of radiation. We know that breast tissue is one of the more radiosensitive tissues. This is especially so for the woman with the BRCA 1 and 2 mutation and the woman who already have a DCIS (non-progressive in over 50% of cases). The radiation, based on extensive studies, would more than likely convert a non-progressive cancer into a highly invasive cancer in a number of instances. Remember, radiation is an accumulative tissue damaging agent – each mammogram will produce a certain amount of DNA and cellular damage that goes unrepaired. Women with inflammatory breast diseases are at an even greater risk, because the high level of free radical and lipid peroxidation damage also damages the DNA repair enzymes, and this means an even greater level of unrepaired DNA with each mammogram. This explains the 1-3% accumulative risk with each mammogram.

It is also known that radiosensitivity declines with aging as does the growth rate of cancers. A woman in her 50’s or 60’s will have a slower growing cancer than will a woman in her 20’s to 40’s. Likewise, because of the gap between radiation exposure and the development of the cancer, the hope of these mammogram proponents is that starting the mammograms at age 50 will mean that most women will die of other diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases, before she will develop a radiation-induced breast cancer. This is especially so if they change mammograms to every other year. For the woman living into her 80’s or 90’s – she will face a significant risk of a radiation-induced breast cancer. Also of concern are the women with the DCIS, which in over 50% of cases will never become a true invasive cancer. Yet, we know that in these breast lesions exist very unstable chromosomes. Radiating such lesions year after year greatly increases the risk that these benign lesions will become highly malignant. That is, the mammogram itself will induce the cancer. Millions of women have DCIS type lesions and most would never be any worse off if they never knew it. Now we have millions of women with DCIS being radiated every year and this assures that many will develop a highly invasive, deadly cancer caused by the scanning itself.

Women have an alternative. They can have a thermogram, an ultrasound or an MRI scan. None of these tests increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. The mammogram defender will counter that the thermograms have not been proven effective – but then, they refuse to fund testing. They admit the MRI gives a much clearer picture of the breast, especially for very dense breasts (which for the mammogram cannot be read), but then claim that it will result in too many false positives. As we have seen, mammograms have a false positive rate of 90% (some 300,000 women undergo biopsies for false positive mammograms a year). How much higher could it be with MRI scans – 95%? They refuse to give up mammograms because they have spent billions on special breast scanning suites and expensive mammogram equipment – it is big business and it would be an admission that they have been harming and killing thousands of women.

Suzanne Somers

Please also see my post: “My Choice for NO RADIATION & NO MORE MAMMOGRAMS” https://dcis411.com/2012/02/01/my-choice-for-no-radiation-no-more-mammograms/

More resources on the controversy of mammograms:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/mammograms-role-as-savior-is-tested/

http://www.jpost.com/Health/Article.aspx?id=254599

http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/mammography/ijhs_mammography.htm

http://www.breastconsults.com/tour/healthfacts.cfm

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/health/cancer-screening-may-be-more-popular-than-useful.html?_r=1&src=tp&smid=fb-share

http://world-wire.com/2011/10/21/corporate-sponsors-control-mammography-industry-warns-cancer-prevention-coalition/

Posted in Health, Options, Personal Stories, Resources | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

BS stands for Blue Shield

Dr. Esserman ordered the Oncotype DX Test for me over 1 month ago (see post “What is Oncotype DX?”)

Today I received Blue Shield’s denial letter stating:

“A physician advisor has reviewed the information provided and determined that the requested service would not be covered as medically necessary under the terms of this health plan per the BSC Medical Policy: “Gene Expression Profiling for Managing Breast Cancer Treatment.” Specifically, A Blue Shield Medical Director has reviewed the submitted medical documentation and has determined the service is not medically necessary as established in Blue Shield of CA Medical Policy. The clinical rationale used in making this decision is”:

– Documentation does not demonstrate that the patient was recently diagnosed (within six months) 
– Documentation does not demonstrate that the patient will be treated with adjuvant hormonal treatment.

Now I know why BS stands for Blue Shield!

I called Blue Shield and reported a grievance. The process, they say, can take 30 days.

Here we go….

Posted in Options, Personal Stories, Resources | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

What Is Oncotype DX?

Oncotype DX is the first clinically validated commercial genomic assay for patients with DCIS. Oncotype DX reveals the underlying biology that can help guide DCIS treatment decisions by predicting the risk of any local recurrence of breast cancer (DCIS or invasive) and the risk of local invasive carcinoma and allowing for personalized treatment based on tumor biology as determined by the DCIS recurrence score.

Excerpt from “Demystifying DCIS Breast Cancer: Test seeks to predict prognosis and guide treatment decisions,” by Kari Bohlke, ScD, A Woman’s Health:

The Oncotype DX breast cancer test was originally developed for use in certain groups of women with early-stage, invasive breast cancer, but it’s now possible to also use the test to generate a DCIS recurrence score—an indicator of the likelihood that DCIS will recur after treatment with lumpectomy alone.

Results from a study of the DCIS score were recently presented at the 34th Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.3 The study involved 327 women with DCIS who had participated in an earlier clinical trial of DCIS treatment. The women had been treated with lumpectomy but had not received radiation therapy.

Three-quarters of the patients had a low risk of recurrence based on the DCIS score. For these women the likelihood of any kind of local recurrence (either DCIS or invasive breast cancer) was 12 percent, and likelihood of a recurrence that involved invasive breast cancer was 5 percent. By comparison, among women with a high risk of recurrence based on the DCIS score, the likelihood of any kind of local recurrence was 27 percent, and the likelihood of a recurrence that involved invasive breast cancer was 19 percent.

These results suggest that the Oncotype DX DCIS score provides information about the risk of recurrence after breast-conserving surgery for DCIS. This information could help guide decisions about the need for postoperative radiation therapy following treatment with lumpectomy. Research in genomics is expanding at a rapid rate and will have a profound effect on many aspects of disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Diseases such as cancer are remarkably complex; genomics provides researchers and physicians with tools to explore and address these complexities and help individualize treatment decisions.

Learn more: Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score

Posted in Options, Resources | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Helplessness Feeds Cancer

Anticancer describes natural methods of health care that contribute to preventing the development of cancer or to bolstering treatment.

I recently read an exceptional book called AntiCancer: A New Way of Life by Dr. David Servan-Schreiber. The book begins with Dr. Servan-Schreiber  telling his fascinating story of how he discovered his own brain tumor after scanning his brain while working on his PhD in neuroscience. His cancer went into remission after conventional treatments of surgery and chemotherapy, but after a relapse, he had an awakening… and became a champion of  “alternative cancer treatments.”

Chapter 9, “The Anticancer Mind,” was one of the most intriguing parts of the book.  Dr. Servan-Schreiber describes an experiment which measured how feelings of helplessness feed cancer…   

“At the University of Pennsylvania…rats were grafted with the exact quantity of cancer cells known to induce a fatal tumor in 50 percent of them…the rats were divided into three groups…In the first group, the control group, the animals received the graft but were then left to live their lives as usual ….in the second group the rats were given small, random electric shocks which they had no control over. The animals in the third group were given the same random shocks but were provided with a lever that they quickly learned to press to avoid getting extra shocks.

“The results, published in Science, were very clear. One month after the graft, 54 percent of rats had successfully rejected their tumor. The rats subjected to shocks with no means of escape had become despondent. They would not fight against intrusions into their cage, and lost their appetite for food and sexual partners. Only 23 percent of these rats managed to overcome their cancer. The most interesting group was the third one. Though they were submitted to the intense stress of the same number of frequent electric shocks, having learned that they could avoid extra shocks by pressing a lever, these animals did not become despondent. They remained feisty when intruded upon, ate well, and copulated as frequently as rats do in a normal environment. And in that group, 63 percent successfully rejected the tumor, more than the rats left alone. It seems that the helplessness was capable of hastening the tumor’s spread, not the shocks themselves.” *

This was published in Science in 1982. Other studies demonstrating the relationship between the progress of cancer and unmanageable stress, leading to helplessness have since followed.

* excerpt taken from AntiCancer: A New Way of Life by Dr. David Servan-Schreiber

Dr. David Servan-Schreiber died in July 2011 — 20 years following his initial diagnosis.  For more information on Dr. David Servan-Schreiber’s remarkable story and groundbreaking work:

http://anticancerbook.com/story.html

M. D. Anderson Cancer Center & Anticancer are currently seeking philanthropic funding to advance the goals of the Integrative Medicine Program, and to specifically support the development and testing of a novel, comprehensive integrative oncology intervention.: http://anticancerbook.com/fund.html

Posted in Health | Leave a comment

Dr. Esserman Touts Tamoxifen

Armed with a list of questions, I enthusiastically flew to San Francisco to hear what  Dr. Esserman had to say about my DCIS situation and her recommendations for risk reduction and monitoring.  After waiting 2 hours in the lobby and 1.5 hours in the exam room, Dr. Esserman finally greeted me. (I learned this extremely long wait is pretty standard for her patients.)

Dr. Esserman immediately sat down and told me her thoughts:

#1. She would NOT have done a wide excision (surgical biopsy) after an initial core needle biopsy  revealed a diagnosis of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia (ADH) in October 2009.

#2. She would have tried talking me into taking “Preventa” — the term she thinks we should be calling tamoxifen.

Dr. Esserman began by asking me, “if I could give you an intervention that could drop your risk by 80% — so instead of having a  25-30% risk of invasive breast cancer — I could take it down to 5%,  would you do it?”

She went on to say, “tamoxifen, in young women, has almost no side effects; it reduces breast density and it is actually something we can measure. We know that in the case of atypia, (which is very similar to low grade DCIS), we reduce the risk of invasive cancer by 85%.”

I said, “there is so much conflicting information.” (I have been told by several doctors that tamoxifen would not benefit me enough to subject myself to the side effects). Dr. Esserman’s response was, “it’s not conflicting, it’s just that people don’t know about it. It’s right there in the  P01 study. There were 13,670 patients in that study. And the people who had atypia had the biggest benefit.”

She went on to say, “With you — you have little bits here and there and I’m sure it’s everywhere. I wouldn’t keep taking it out.” A better option she suggested was to do “a   global risk reduction” using tamoxifen.

I told her I am taking bio-identical progesterone as part of my natural risk reduction plan. Her response: “The one thing you should NOT take is progesterone. It’s like putting gasoline on a fire. That’s the one thing you should not be doing! I am adamant about that.” She said, “Nobody should be telling you to put something in your body that is mytogenic and actually is cancer causing. And bio-identicals — progesterone is progesterone — it’s the one thing you want to minimize.”

I said, “I tested that I was low in progesterone.” And she responded, “Good, fantastic, great — keep it that way.”

Oy! Can there be any more contradictory information!! My naturopathioc Dr. highly recommends bio-identical progesterone for patients like me with DCIS and who test low in progesterone and are “estrogen dominant” as a means of breast cancer risk reduction.  Dr. Lee’s book, What Your Doctor Might NOT Tell You about Breast Cancer: How Hormone Balance Can Help Save Your Life, and other books I have recently read and list on my “Resources” page say the exact opposite to what Dr. Esserman is saying!!! I know many other women diagnosed with DCIS who are being advised by naturopathic/preventative doctors to take bio-identical progesterone.

Continuing the conversation with Dr. Esserman regarding tamoxifen, I said, “But Dr. Lagios told me that the studies on tamoxifen showed very little benefit for prevention and risk reduction and he believes DCIS is not hormone related. Also, my San Diego oncologist told me I would have only a 1-2% risk reduction,” so I pretty much disregarded it as an option.  Dr. Esserman responded, “It’s true, in the UK, the studies on tamoxifen were all on high grade cancer and it didn’t work. Why? Because in the UK, they don’t biopsy the kind of calcifications you had. Their cancer to biopsy rate is 50%. Ours is more like 20%. We biopsy every calcification that looks even remotely suspicious. Which is why we find all this stuff. Which is why I wrote all those things you have on your website.”

Next steps discussed: Dr. Esserman will order the Oncotype DX test which will determine whether I am at higher risk (15%) for invasive cancer or lower risk (5%). I told her the outcome of this test may effect my decision to consider taking tamoxifen, but I would definitely need to do more research on it.

More about Dr. Esserman: http://www.nobhillgazette.com/wp/2011/01/profile-2011/

More about tamoxifen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamoxifen

Are there natural Alternatives to tamoxifen? Thanks to Elyn Jacobs, we have some answers. Please see her article here.

I know this is quite a controversial subject and I’d love to get some feedback on this so please share your comments!


Posted in Options, Personal Stories, Resources | Tagged , , , , | 19 Comments

The Insanity of DCIS Surgery

I am astonished at the way in which DCIS surgeries are performed…it is unacceptable and we must find a better way than to blindly hack at women’s breasts 2-3 times and then tell them they need a mastectomy because clear margins could not be obtained. How would you feel if you were told you needed to amputate your breast after 3 surgeries for something that is non-invasive and most likely will never be invasive cancer?  This is just part of the breast cancer insanity that needs to change! With all the billions of dollars raised for breast cancer treatments and research, how can procedures remain so invasive, ineffective and antiquated???

Dr. Susan Love responds to the New York Times and other news organizations which have recently reported on a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association which found that nearly one in four women who have a lumpectomy require another surgery to remove additional tissue. “What we desperately need is better imaging, which will allow us to map the ductal anatomy and the extent of disease accurately ahead of time and direct an informed operation rather than what is in essence an exploratory one.”

Yes, Dr. Susan Love, we need better imaging!!! And we need for insurance to authorize it and make it available to anyone who has DCIS or is at high risk for breast cancer!

Please read my blog post about “better imaging” available NOW.  Bye-Bye Mammograms: Hello SonoCiné Ultrasound

 

Posted in Health | 1 Comment

Excellent News — MRI Results are All Clear!

Dr. Stephen Feig, Professor of Radiology and Director of Breast Imaging at UC Irvine, gave me the results of my Aurora RODEO MRI today. He said, “nothing suspicious — see you in a year!” 🙂

To learn more about Aurora dedicated Breast MRI, please read article:

“My Choice for NO RADIATION & NO MORE MAMMOGRAMS”:

https://dcis411.com/2012/02/01/my-choice-for-no-radiation-no-more-mammograms/

Posted in Health, Options, Personal Stories, Resources | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments