 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / June 2006Jerry Lewis and PCa.
I did not know Jerry Lewis had prostate cancer. This article is about him having a heart attack. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5078346.stm > I did not know Jerry Lewis had prostate cancer. This article is about > him having a heart attack. Someone will correct me, but I thought that something like 90% of men at 80 years old will have PCa? With all his other problems, looks like this one is almost minor! JK Sinrod www.sinrodstudios.com www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com >> I did not know Jerry Lewis had prostate cancer. This article is about >> him having a heart attack. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > one > is almost minor! I think the rule of thumb is, Your age is the %. Agreed that he has other major problems. Since the PCa has not gotten much publicity, it seems that it's pretty minor compared with the others. >>I did not know Jerry Lewis had prostate cancer. This article is about >>him having a heart attack. > > Someone will correct me, but I thought that something like 90% of men at > 80 years old will have PCa? With all his other problems, looks like this one > is almost minor! This is an estimate of the percentage of men who will show some evidence, usually microscopic, of prostate cancer on autopsy, and there is quite a lot of variation in what different studies show. But the percentage certainly goes up with age and is very high for men over 80. But it is very important to differentiate this from men who have been clinically diagnosed as having prostate cancer. That is a very different thing. It is estimated that about one man in six will be so diagnosed some time in life. The percentage for men over 80 would certainly be higher, but I would be surprised if it higher than 25 percent. Of course, few doctors will be actively looking for prostate cancer in such men, and often won't treat it if it is found. Most will not even do PSA testing unless there is a problem. On the other hand, such men often will have urinary problems which might lead a physician to order a PSA test. So my guess is that these two factors would tend to cancel out. Perhaps, soneone---ron?---has some hard figures on incidence of clinically significant prostate cancer among men over 80. It might be noted that the distinction between evidence of subclinical disease and actually having the disease, in the sense we usually mean that, is not special to prostate cancers. It is believed that many other cancers may may be present in subclinical amounts. The same could be true for cardiovascular problems, and other conditions. It is one argument against aggressive testing such as full body scans. It is claimed that often you will find something that would never have bothered the patient, while treatment for it may cause problems. As an example, I have a positive tuberculin skin test, and a doctor once told me I have some evidence of minor lung scarring which might indicate I once has a subclinical case of TB. But no one would treat me as someone who has "had" tuberculosis. > JK Sinrod > www.sinrodstudios.com > www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com SEER Incidence >From 2000-2003, the median age at diagnosis for cancer of the prostate was 68 years of age. Approximately 0.0% were diagnosed under age 20; 0.0% between 20 and 34; 0.5% between 35 and 44; 8.3% between 45 and 54; 26.9% between 55 and 64; 37.0% between 65 and 74; 22.6% between 75 and 84; and 4.7% 85+ years of age. In actual numbers: 34 to 44: 1,150 45 to 54: 19,090 55 to 64 61,870 65 to 74: 85,100 74 to 84: 51,980 85+ : 10,810 And that is 80,960 men under 64 years of age. A full 35% of the men diagnosed with PCa those years... RalphV > This is an estimate of the percentage of men who will show some > evidence, usually microscopic, of prostate cancer on autopsy, and there [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Perhaps, soneone---ron?---has some hard figures on incidence of > clinically significant prostate cancer among men over 80. > SEER Incidence >>From 2000-2003, the median age at diagnosis for cancer of the prostate [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > RalphV Thanks for the figures. This still doesn't tell us explicitly what the risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer is at any specific age. Since roughly 17 percent of men in the US will be diagnosed some time in life, we might conclude on the basis of the above figures that a man over 75 has roughly a chance of 17x(0.226+0.047) ~ 4.6 percent of being diagnosed with prostate cancer some time during the rest of his life. The chances for a man over 80 would be less. So it would appear that the assertion that essentially all men over 80 "have" prostate cancer is misleading at best. As I indicated before, one could argue that they "really" have prostate cancer, and it would be discovered if one looked hard enough. But in this case, looking hard enough would involve removing their prostates and examining them carefully. No one is likely to do this is absence of clinical evidence of prostate cancer, and even then it would only rarely be done, except possibly on autopsy, for men that age. Of course, few men that age are actively screened via PSA testing, so it is possible that the incidence of diagnosed cases would go up substantially if that were done. On the other hand, men that age often have problems urinating, and it would not be surprising if prostate cancer were diagnosed in the process of investigating the cause. How these factors balance, I don't know. The upshot, I think, is that a clinical diagnosis of prostate cancer in a man over 80 should always be taken seriously rather than treated as "normal" for the age. It may not be necessary to treat it, but it should be monitored. Prostate cancer, as it grows, can interfere with urination and create other problems. If it metastasizes, it can lead to great pain. So ignoring it is something which I assume no competent physician would do. >>This is an estimate of the percentage of men who will show some >>evidence, usually microscopic, of prostate cancer on autopsy, and there [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>Perhaps, soneone---ron?---has some hard figures on incidence of >>clinically significant prostate cancer among men over 80. Leonard Evens wrote...snip... This still doesn't tell us explicitly what the risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer is at any specific age. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Len...Here's another SEER Table that sheds some more light on your question...ron PROSTATE CANCER (Invasive) Percent Diagnosed With Cancer In 10, 20 and 30 Years and In Remaining Lifetime, Given Cancer Free At Current Age: All Races 1997-99 Current Age +10 yrs +20 yrs +30 yrs Eventually 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.83 20 0.00 0.00 0.19 16.92 30 0.00 0.19 2.21 17.14 40 0.19 2.24 8.09 17.44 50 2.13 8.20 14.67 17.90 60 6.69 13.83 16.86 17.40 Lifetime Risk of Being Diagnosed = 16.67% Lifetime Risk of Dying = 3.13% > Leonard Evens wrote...snip... > This still doesn't tell us explicitly what the risk of being diagnosed [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Lifetime Risk of Being Diagnosed = 16.67% > Lifetime Risk of Dying = 3.13% Thanks ron. The figures still don't say what the risk is at age 80 since the table stops at age 60. Up to that point, the lifetime risk doesn't seem to change significantly with age, relfecting the fact that prostate cancer is actually relatively rare up to age 60. On the other hand, the other data seems to suggest that after age 75, the risk of being diagnosed clinically with prostate cancer may actually decline. I've already discussed possible reasons for that. I love Jerry Lewis... Hey LAYY-dee! Regardless of the stats...It wouldn't suprise me that he had it. He's had almost everything ELSE. Best to all, Ron B. Chicago Let me add here that the statement I threw out there about 90% of men at 80 years old having PCa, is probably based on all men in general of that age, not men solely diagnosed with it. That's a very big difference. If you die of a heart attack at 82, no one may ever know you had PCa without an autopsy. If the published figures only show diagnosed men, I wouldn't be surprised if the actual number were many multiples of that. My dad is 92 and developed some problems urinating. The uro never even biopsied him, only treating the symptoms.  SignatureJK Sinrod www.sinrodstudios.com www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com Your 90% at 80 number looks to be a little high but may not be far off. This paper: http://www.asip.org/pubs/bulletin/Milestones/MIP10-2002-Fourth.pdf documents autopsy studies of men who were not previously diagnosed with Pca. They found 20.5% of men over age 50 had at least microscopic incidence of undiagnosed prostate cancer and that the percentage doubled for every decade of life. You are correct in that there is a big difference between the percent of men diagnosed with PCa and the percent of men that harbour the disease albeit at microscopic levels. > Let me add here that the statement I threw out there about 90% of men > at 80 years old having PCa, is probably based on all men in general of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > only > treating the symptoms. This one says 70% at age 80 (by autopsy). http://www.fpnotebook.com/URO13.htm > Your 90% at 80 number looks to be a little high but may not be far off. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> only >> treating the symptoms. > This one says 70% at age 80 (by autopsy). > http://www.fpnotebook.com/URO13.htm It's not my hypothesis, only something that stuck in my mind that I must have read ages ago? Factor in the known cases, the unautopsied and autopsied, and it looks like it's something we all get eventually. or we're just living too long. SignatureJK Sinrod www.sinrodstudios.com www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com >>This one says 70% at age 80 (by autopsy). >>http://www.fpnotebook.com/URO13.htm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > autopsied, and it looks like it's something we all get eventually. or we're > just living too long. I still claim that if it is below the level where it can be diagnosed, then it is a misnomer to say you "have it". We might show evidence of all sorts of things on autopsy if looked at very carefully. But things which aren't clinically significant can safely be ignored. >>>This one says 70% at age 80 (by autopsy). >>>http://www.fpnotebook.com/URO13.htm [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > carefully. But things which aren't clinically significant can safely be > ignored. This does suggest to me something I have never considered before....perhaps there are other cancers lurking in our bodies, the cells of which either have not begun to multiply rapidly and/or our immune systems are keeping them in check. If everyone were autopsied upon death and all cancers were looked for, perhaps old people would have several different kinds of quiescent cancers. Just a layman's thoughts. >>>>This one says 70% at age 80 (by autopsy). >>>>http://www.fpnotebook.com/URO13.htm [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > looked for, perhaps old people would have several different kinds of > quiescent cancers. Just a layman's thoughts. I think that is in fact true. It is a question of judgement to decide at what level you need to take something seriously. With respect to prostate cancer, some people, including some medical authorities, argue that if you look hard enough and long enough for prostate cancer in any given man, eventually you will find it. They also argue that such cancers are unlikely to cause any problems and hence they think men should not be screened for prostate cancer. Associated with this is the belief that treatment for prostate cancer, beyond hormone therpy for metsatatic cancer, is fruitless. Just as for overzealous testing, I think this is based on the fallacy of "HAVING IT". On the one hand, some people might argue that you should do everything possible to find out if you HAVE IT. In the extreme, that would recommend removing every man's prostate past a certain age. On the other hand, skeptics argue that every man HAS IT and few men die of it, so there is no point in treating IT. Both these points of view ignore the fact that prostate cancer is complex and it is a matter of balance to decide what level of screening and treatment is appropriate. Among other things this can be a function of age, family history, and other factors. You have to address specific question not use some simple minded catch-all. Simple minds demand simple answers, but unfortunately, the biology of prostate cancer is not simple. Those of us who have been diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer have discovered this. > cancers are unlikely to cause any problems and hence they think men > should not be screened for prostate cancer. Associated with this is the I cannot believe this thinking. "Prostate cancer is overtreated, so we just shouldn't diagnose it." What an irresponsible, callous attitude. If patients and doctors are overtreating minor PCa, the solution to that is education. > belief that treatment for prostate cancer, beyond hormone therpy for > metsatatic cancer, is fruitless. Seriously? Well, I guess that makes sense, if you refuse to identify any cancer until it has reached the point of mets to the bone and causing pain. Their belief, then, is that all the men who are treated with surgery or radiation would have been just as 'cured' without it? That it never would have become a problem? That none of those men would have progressed to metastatized cancer? > think this is based on the fallacy of "HAVING IT". On the one hand, > some people might argue that you should do everything possible to find > out if you HAVE IT. In the extreme, that would recommend removing every > man's prostate past a certain age. On the other hand, skeptics argue > that every man HAS IT and few men die of it, so there is no point in > treating IT. Both these points of view ignore the fact that prostate Well, I guess if those men who die of it all died serenely in their sleep at age 95, there would be some point. I have watched a man die of it after it metastatized to his brain (as well as bones). He was otherwise healthy. > cancer is complex and it is a matter of balance to decide what level of > screening and treatment is appropriate. Among other things this can be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cancer is not simple. Those of us who have been diagnosed and treated > for prostate cancer have discovered this. I am just trying to wrap my brain around this thinking. I don't see how a reasonable person could truly believe that screening for prostate cancer is bad. Any further explanation would be welcome. To me, it sounds like, "Who cares if a man has prostate cancer? Its not worth treating." Meaning, the man is not worth treating. Meaning, his life is not worth taking care of. There is another argument I have heard, also. That it causes stress to get a PCa diagnosis. Again, since this is a man's disease, the responses seem to be deragatory to men. They shouldn't have stress? They can't take reality? I KNOW it is stressful; it sucks the big one. But this 'if you don't know, you don't have to think about it' is unbelievable. I realize you are not promoting it, Leonard, just describing it. best regards, laurel >> cancers are unlikely to cause any problems and hence they think men >> should not be screened for prostate cancer. Associated with this is the [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > best regards, laurel The point of the original posting, as I understood it, is that there are microscopic cells of prostate cancer in most men in their senior years, and that for the majority of men these cells pose no real risk of life- or health-threatening disease. Medical technology is getting increasing good at finding stuff -- cancer cells in our bodies, miniscule levels of pollutants in our water and food supplies, trace amounts of particulates in the air -- that in much larger quantities may imperil us, but that in microscopic quantities really may not matter a whole hell of a lot. Alex >>cancer is complex and it is a matter of balance to decide what level of >>screening and treatment is appropriate. Among other things this can be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > treating." Meaning, the man is not worth treating. Meaning, his life > is not worth taking care of. For men whose life expectancy is not too long, it may make sense not to screen for prostate cancer. Usually prostate cancer won't be treated aggressively unless the man's life expectancy is ten or more years. Even Patrick Walsh questions whether men over 80 should have regular PSA tests. > There is another argument I have heard, also. That it causes stress to > get a PCa diagnosis. Again, since this is a man's disease, the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I realize you are not promoting it, Leonard, just describing it. I was trying to say that it is complex. > best regards, laurel <SNIP> > In the extreme, that would recommend removing every > man's prostate past a certain age. <SNIP> This is not a far fetched idea as many women now realize that their odds for breast cancer is so high they chose to have a double mastectomy done while they are quite young with the hopes of avoiding it. This is only done in extreme cases but being BC runs through some families with a vengeance it is an option that can be utilized. Why could not the same thinking be applied to PC? When a young man realizes that his grandfather had it, his father had it, all of his uncles have had it, and possibly his siblings, then it should be an option for him too. Why should he have to wait until he has it? Why shouldn't he be allowed to decide at 35 to have it removed? Just a thought. Bev > <SNIP> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > be an option for him too. Why should he have to wait until he has it? Why > shouldn't he be allowed to decide at 35 to have it removed? The argument does make sense in certain very special cases, but I don't think the medical profession has gotten to the point of considering anything like that. While removing breasts may be traumatic emotionally, it has no obvious physical side effects in women past childbearing. Side effects of radical prostatectomy are often exaggerated, particularly for younger men, but there is some risk. At present, I think a urologist would feel the risk of side effects, albeit small, outweighs the benefit of eliminating any risk of prostate cancer, particularly since aggressive screening can find a cancer at an early stage. > Just a thought. > Bev >> <SNIP> >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > of eliminating any risk of prostate cancer, particularly since aggressive > screening can find a cancer at an early stage. I think it is a mis-statement to characterize the side effects of RP as "often exaggerated." In my experience, urologists often downplay both the likelihood and the physical and emotional impacts of RP. The several docs I've spoken to all claim success rates of 95- to 98% in recovery of potency and continence. Talking to guys who've had the operation, however, one gets a very different impression. Also, I think it's misguided to evaluate the impact of surgery only in terms of physical effects. A woman who loses her breasts, and a man who winds up with a shortened, flaccid penis, and is unable to ejaculate, may bear a great emotional burden. Untreated, cancer can take away years of lifespan. Untreated, depression after major surgery can make those "recovered" years pretty unenjoyable and unproductive. Alex > I think it is a mis-statement to characterize the side effects of RP as > "often exaggerated." In my experience, urologists often downplay both the > likelihood and the physical and emotional impacts of RP. The several docs > I've spoken to all claim success rates of 95- to 98% in recovery of potency > and continence. I haven't seen any such claims even under the best of circumstances. The best surgeons claim success rates for potency (after a recovery period) for relatively young men of more than 80 percent. (Of course, they can't solve pre-existing impotence by RP, so that applies to men without impotence problems to start.) No one claims much success for men over 70. My urologist told me the chances were about 50 percent at my age (67). Any urologist claiming 95 to 98 percent success in avoiding impotence for any group of men, except possibly for very young men, is lying. But success rates that high in avoiding serious long term incontinence are pretty common. > Talking to guys who've had the operation, however, one gets > a very different impression. I suppose that depends on whom you've talked to. Unless we know the ages, how long after surgery, the status before surgery, etc., one can't know just what happened. And, generally anecdotal information is not too representative. Often, it is just the men who've had problems who are likely to be found discussing them. Those wthout problems have gone on with their lives and are much less likely to be heard from. > Also, I think it's misguided to evaluate the impact of surgery only in terms > of physical effects. A woman who loses her breasts, and a man who winds up > with a shortened, flaccid penis, and is unable to ejaculate, may bear a > great emotional burden. Untreated, cancer can take away years of lifespan. Agreed. I was just trying to show that there are some differences between breast cancer and prostate cancer in this regard. Namely, a women who is afraid of breast cancer because of a strong family history and perhaps some genetic markers may be much more willing to face the side effects of radical mastectomy than a man with a strong family history of prostate cancer. And their doctors may also respond differently to the idea of prophylactic surgery for real differences in the situations. > Untreated, depression after major surgery can make those "recovered" years > pretty unenjoyable and unproductive. Clearly each man has to decide what is best for him. I studied everything I could find, and I decided that the plausible side effects were something I could deal with, and I considered the prospect of metastatic prostate cancer, which also has serious side effects, sufficiently threatening to justify aggressive treatment. I didn't base my deision on the worst possible cases, but I could have been wrong, and something awful could have happened. I realized I could have some minor incontinence and that I might be impotent, the latter being an even chance at my age. I don't really have any serious incontinence problems, at least, nothing more severe than what many men my age have in any case. I was impotent for about 18 months and during that time I used a pump. My wife and I managed to maintain an active sex life that way at about the same level as it was before surgery. Even today, after erections have returned to a large dgree, sex is not the same as it was before surgery for me, but it is still worth the effort. I wish things were better, but then again I also wish it were like it was when my wife and I were just married in our 20s. But that is not going to happen, and all told we manage pretty well. I find lots of things to be depressed about these days, but the side effects of treatment for prostate cancer are not among them. > Alex <SNIP> > Also, I think it's misguided to evaluate the impact of surgery only in terms > of physical effects. A woman who loses her breasts, and a man who winds up [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Alex Life is exactly what you make it. Depression happens and is treatable but those women who make the decision for surgery to prevent or treat breast cancer have a duel battle. First they have intense painful physiotherapy just to be able to use their arms again as they take more than just breast tissue. Then they have to deal with the mutilated body that they now possess. So it is a trade off, they hope they get to watch their children grow up or just live a full life. A shortened flaccid penis is not the end of the world. It is an obstacle on life's path. It was the result of a choice to not die from prostate cancer. It's still there, it wasn't removed. It still has feeling; it can still have an orgasm; it's a useful hose for urine; it is still the softest skin on the body (softer than anything on a baby or a female). So what if it doesn't work as it once did? You are still a man, capable of loving and being loved; you are alive and with hope you are cancer free. It might seem odd to awake without a morning pissy hard-on; it might seem different because it does not respond as it once did. But a man is not defined by the size of his penis, or his erection, or his ability to produce off spring. A man is defined by the person he is, his capacity to love, his generosity, his contribution to society, his sense of fairness and truthfulness, etc. You wouldn't want to be defined by the number of hairs on your chest or the color of that hair, so why would someone berate themselves over the state of his penis? It is natural to mourn the loss of what once was but there comes a time when one must move forward. Life changes and is never stagnant. Anyone who has held a newborn wishes the baby could stay that way forever or watched a toddler playing with a garden hose wishes that toddler would stay that way forever, but they don't, thank goodness! Most children do grow up and don't stay babies forever. And so as adults we face many challenges as our paths wander through life. There are probably quite a few men who have managed to pass through their senior years with solid rock hard erections but I'm sure it's a little like going fishing - that fish seems to grow with each brag. There are lots of men who can no longer get it up and for various reasons having nothing to do with PC. The greatest sex organ is between the ears and not in one's pants. Some anti-depressants have a nasty habit of creating a sexual dysfunction. So dealing with ED and taking some anti-depressants can often make matters worse. It can be a vicious cycle. What is important for many men out here is that they realize that in spite of their ED they are still men. Life has changed for them but they are not less than what they were before PC. PC has changed them in other ways and made them more aware of the importance of just being alive. A man who can appreciate life, is willing to compensate for what is lacking, and can truly love someone is by far sexier than some buck who only knows how to find self-gratification. Bev > <SNIP> >> Also, I think it's misguided to evaluate the impact of surgery only in [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > buck who only knows how to find self-gratification. > Bev Bev, all of what you say is perfectly reasonable. My point was simply that deciding to have one's prostate cut out, or one's breast removed, is hardly a decision to be made with the expectation that side effects will be negligible. In the case of prostate cancer (unlike breast cancer) there is the additional complication that, for those with non-aggressive forms of PCa, the risk of death from the disease may well be minor. Let me put it this way: suppose a woman 65 years old was told by her oncologist that she did indeed have a tumor in her breast, but it was totally encapsulated and that there was only a 1% likelihood that it would spread. She could have it removed, with all the surgical risks, physiotherapy and body image impact that you note above. Or she could leave it alone for now, watching it carefully with mammograms every three months and with surgery as a future option in the unlikely event it spread. Would the words "breast cancer" be enough by themselves to impel her to surgery? Would you agree with that choice? Alex Yes, I think in most cases women want their BC treated. Of course we are mixing apples and oranges here, but the question is are people willing to risk all sorts of other things to remove the cancer and I believe the answer to that question is yes. At what point is the cancer no longer a concern? When the person's general health is so bad that the life expectancy is less than the potential danger from the cancer. Here's two cases from within my own family. My mother's best friend since childhood discovered a lump on her rib cage. She figured it was just a lump and gave it a week or so to go away. When it didn't, she called the doctor who saw her immediately and sent her for a gazillion tests. It came back as BC. She was shocked as she always had yearly mammograms and they were all perfect. She was about 78 at the time and in perfect health. She had an extensive double mastectomy, radiation treatments and chemo. She lost her battle about 2 years later. (Her husband had battled PC prior to her discovery of BC. He's still alive and well in his 90's. And, no, I don't know how his PC was treated. I suspect he might have had a RP and then radiation. It was all very hush-hush.) My BIL's father has PC. He's in a nursing home and is 93. He had a turp about 2 years ago to keep him peeing and comfortable. My BIL had to put his parents in a nursing home a few years ago as they could no longer care for themselves. His mother (now 92) has advanced Alzheimer's and his father's diabetes is no longer controlled. The list of what is wrong with his father is a mile long and adds up to the fact that the man is dying of old age and body parts are wearing out. My BIL has had to fight with the medical personnel to knock off the constant testing for PSA etc. Yes, they have excellent insurance but at 93 who cares where his PSA is? Just keep him comfortable. There is one thing you have left out of the equation and that is that not everything must be treated with surgery. If I was told I had BC, I cannot imagine not doing something about it. (BC tends to be very aggressive so maybe it's not the best thing to put against PC but both have a major impact on a person.) Let's say they think this is non-aggressive and that I can sit and possibly wait. We are right back to WW for PC. Waiting for what? For it to escape and become a major problem? I have my own health issues but so far nothing life-threatening. Personally I would look very hard at brachytherapy for BC. I'd consider a lumpectomy and down at the bottom of the list would be complete removal of the breast. This may sound strange but it's not the removal of the breast that would bother me as much as it would be the time I'd have to stay in the hospital and the months of therapy afterwards. (I've always joked that if I ever had to lose a breast I'd hope they would take both as I'd rather be flat-chested than lop-sided.) I have several friends who have battled breast cancer and won and a few who didn't. I know what these gals go through and I hate to say this but it makes treatment for PC seem like a walk in the park. OTOH if I was 29 with no signs of BC and watched my mother die of BC, maybe lost a sister to it, and watched the other females in the family battle it I'd probably consider a prophylactic radical mastectomy. Would I be happy about it? No. But yes, I would probably do it so that maybe I could actually live my life without worrying about BC killing me. Let me leave you with this. A few months after the birth of my first child I had a problem. Terrible pains, cramping and a tummy that wouldn't go away. I finally got into see the doctor. Twenty-fours hours later I was in the hospital and they removed a tumor the size of a 8 month embryonic sac. Along with it they removed an ovary and the fallopian tube on the one side , 3/4's of the ovary on the other side and half of that tube, and a portion of my uterus was removed with a nip and tuck to my bladder. I was told my baby days were over. I was devastated. I was young (20), energetic, married to the most handsome sexy guy on earth and had been raised to think that the most wonderful thing a woman can do is have babies and care for her husband. I battled bladder infections one after the other for months due to the surgery. And then one day I felt this strange butterfly sensation that I had only felt once before when I was pregnant. Then I started with the morning sickness except for me it was all day long. I had a good friend who was pregnant at the time and I keep chalking up my sickness as sympathy for her. I hadn't missed any periods but what I had was light and without all my parts that was to be expected. My pants didn't fit, I felt horrible and I went back to the doctor. I begged for a pregnancy test and he said no, I had another tumor and it would probably have to come out. He sent me home with pain killers. Pain killers in a mother with a young child is not smart! So I wouldn't take them. Finally after my mother persuaded me, I made an appointment with my OB. He put me on the table and poked on my tummy and sent me for some blood work. (There were no over the counter EPT's back then.) He came back and said I have good news and bad news. The bad news was I had another tumor and the maybe not so good news was - I was pregnant. The question was could I carry both and get through the pregnancy without the tumor breaking and causing emergency surgery and possible loss of the child I was carrying. My OB also said the reason why the other doc did not tell me I was pregnant was that he figured he'd have to schedule me for surgery and it would have been better if I didn't know I was pregnant and therefore I wouldn't lose anything. Well, I managed to get that second child into this world. I spent most of the pregnancy on my back. The hormonal changes due to the pregnancy caused the tumor to recede but once the pregnancy was over I was back in trouble again. At age 23 I had the last little piece of ovary was removed, along with that remaining piece of tube, the uterus and the cervix. They thought they would put me on HRT but I couldn't tolerate it. So before I was 25 I was completely menopausal. I had two beautiful daughters but no son for my husband. All of the hormones that make women what they are were gone. The changes were subtle, my patience would wear thin, my sexual desire was shot, sex itself was dry and painful ... the list went on and on all from lack of hormones. I had no one to turn to, no one to ask. But the best resource I had was the man I had married. He knew he had to work extra hard to help me, we discovered KY jelly, and eventually I realized that sex was in the brain. Maybe we were tame compared to other couples our age. Sex became more planned and saved for weekends and with two small children in the house the window of opportunity is not very long. LOL There were times I was not the least bit interested in doing anything but I went along with it for his sake. Who would have thought that about 25 years later the roles would reverse. Now I'm the one saying, "You can do it. It's okay that it's not the same. I understand it doesn't work like it should. Talk to me and let me know what you are feeling and what can I do to make it better?" We learn to compensate and appreciate what we do have. It is our bodies and our lives. Everyone has to make certain choices in life. It's important to make educated choices and everything has its side-effects. Maybe what is important is how we cope once we've made certain decisions. Bev Wow Bev... as we all have learned, you are smart and articulate. Your post was amazing. No medical professional could have written a more heartfelt thesis. Thanks for sharing. Wishing all the best to everyone here, Ron B. Chicago > Yes, I think in most cases women want their BC treated. Of course we are > mixing apples and oranges here, but the question is are people willing to [quoted text clipped - 154 lines] > decisions. > Bev Bev, we may disagree about some stuff (I, for example, am a watchful-waiter at the moment) but like every other guy in this group I think your husband is one damn lucky fellow! I'm delighted that you are doing well after all you've been through. It's pretty good validation of the notion that anything that doesn't kill us makes us stronger. Your guy is fortunate that you can share that mental strength with him. Hugs and best wishes to the both of you. Alex I remind him once in a while that he's lucky. I also fix his breakfast every morning, pack his lunch, kiss him goodbye, and wave to him from the porch as he drives away. Doesn't everybody's wife do that? He has no clue! You should have been around when I was working full time and had two teenagers to get out to the school bus, too! Yeah, I know, June Cleaver here, except she never wore jeans, didn't have a high stress job, and she never SCREAMED at her kids! LOL Bev > Bev, we may disagree about some stuff (I, for example, am a watchful-waiter > at the moment) but like every other guy in this group I think your husband [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Alex >I remind him once in a while that he's lucky. I also fix his breakfast >every > morning, pack his lunch, kiss him goodbye, and wave to him from the porch > as > he drives away. Doesn't everybody's wife do that? Decidedly not! SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05, 2/06, 6/06 PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 Non Illegitimi Carborundum It's my fault; I spoiled him. But on Sat and Sun he grinds my coffee beans, makes my coffee, and bring it to me in bed. Sometimes it is the little things in life. Bev > >I remind him once in a while that he's lucky. I also fix his breakfast > >every [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Decidedly not! > This does suggest to me something I have never considered > before....perhaps there are other cancers lurking in our bodies, the cells > of which either have not begun to multiply rapidly and/or our immune > systems are keeping them in check. If everyone were autopsied upon death > and all cancers were looked for, perhaps old people would have several > different kinds of quiescent cancers. Just a layman's thoughts. I guess it depends on the definition. I've heard cancer defined as cells reproducing out of control and failing to die like normal cells. SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05, 2/06 PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 Non Illegitimi Carborundum |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.