 |
 | 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 / March 2007Not OT--Eliz. Edwards' Cancer
After listening to Mrs. Edwards describe her prognosis and condition as "chronic" and a summary of continuing treatment, I thought of possible similarities to recurrent PCa. I read somewhere that there is a relationship between breast cancer and prostate cancer in genetic predisposition in families. Are there any other similarities between the two cancers and/or similarities in treatment for recurrent disease? > After listening to Mrs. Edwards describe her prognosis and condition as > "chronic" and a summary of continuing treatment, I thought of possible > similarities to recurrent PCa. I read somewhere that there is a > relationship between breast cancer and prostate cancer in genetic > predisposition in families. Are there any other similarities between the > two cancers and/or similarities in treatment for recurrent disease? Claude, My next paper should explain the similarities and differences in great detail. Basically, the effects of hormones are hormone receptors are pretty much the same. However, there are three obvious differences between BC an PCa: 1. Both BC and PCa almost always start out due to high Aro activity. In PCa, this occurs by the activation of the Aro gene, whereas in BC this occurs by production of a factor that changes the promoter for existing Aro from type I to type II. For both BC and PCa, the end result is a high local level of E2. 2. Telomerase activity increases in both BC and PCa in response to high local levels of E2. In PCa, increased ER-alpha or ER-beta increases telomerase activity even more, whereas in BC, only increased ER-alpha increases telomerase activity even more. 3. Membrane androgen receptor in both BC and PCa upregulate apoptotic proteins, but bcl-2 is downregulated in BC, whereas bcl-2 is upregulated in PCa. Ed Friedman I'm irritated by Geraldine Ferraro's public assurance that Elizabeth Edwards will be just fine, that she should live a full, normal life because breast cancer bone mets are permanently and completely manageable. Doesn't that mislead hundreds of thousands of breast cancer patients, or are breast cancer bone mets very different from ours? I.P. > I'm irritated by Geraldine Ferraro's public assurance that Elizabeth > Edwards will be just fine, that she should live a full, normal life > because breast cancer bone mets are permanently and completely > manageable. Doesn't that mislead hundreds of thousands of breast > cancer patients, or are breast cancer bone mets very different from > ours? Good grief.....they are NOT completely manageable. What cancer is?? I don't see why these mets should be any different, other than they perhaps head for different spots than prostate cancer. Mets are mets. Period. If her husband had a brain in his head, he would drop out and look after his family. I am sure this very sad news will cause people NOT to vote for him....for many reasons. But that damned "C" word will scare off a lot of them. Just my 2 cents worth.....but I feel VERY sorry for that lovely lady. She and her husband have had to face more grief than most of us. Losing their child would top the list. HF >> I'm irritated by Geraldine Ferraro's public assurance that Elizabeth Edwards will be >> just fine, that she should live a full, normal life because breast cancer bone mets are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > these mets should be any different, other than they perhaps head for different spots > than prostate cancer. Mets are mets. Period. I hadn't heard that she said that. It's not what the National Cancer Institute says. Their data, quoted in a CNN article I saw today, says that five years after metastasis an average of only 28% of breast cancer patients are still alive. So Ferraro's assurance appears to be misinformed. > If her husband had a brain in his head, he would drop out and look after his family. I > am sure this very sad news will cause people NOT to vote for him....for many reasons. > But that damned "C" word will scare off a lot of them. According to the news reports, Elizabeth Edwards insisted that her husband continue his election run. I don't think this will hurt him politically. I think it will win him a lot of sympathy and make Elizabeth an even more effective campaigner for him because people will be interested in what she has to say. I hope he doesn't drop out. I think he's a good candidate. > Just my 2 cents worth.....but I feel VERY sorry for that lovely lady. She and her > husband have had to face more grief than most of us. Losing their child would top the > list. I agree. Superficially, the Edwards appeared to live the American dream. They are attractive people who went from relatively humble beginnings to wealth and power and public service. But they've certainly had a boatload of personal losses. Alan > I hadn't heard that she said that. Lengthy TV interview with Ferraro, in which she repeatedly assures the world of what I quoted. > It's not what the National Cancer > Institute says. Their data, quoted in a CNN article I saw today, > says that five years after metastasis an average of only 28% of > breast cancer patients are still alive. > So Ferraro's assurance appears to be misinformed. She can't be that ignorant or misinformed, given her brains and her own cancer; it's nothing more than partisan politics at the expense of gullible women everywhere. > I hope he doesn't drop out. I think he's a good candidate. I was about to present a much more informed picture of the man, based on publicly available facts, but I'd rather see him get the nomination, because any well-informed, good-looking high school kid whose puppy has parvo (to level the playing field) can slaughter him in a debate. Losing a child and having cancer in the family does not qualify one to run a bingo parlor, let alone the free world. > Just my 2 cents worth Just my informed 2 cents. I.P. > ... > I was about to present a much more informed picture of the man, based on publicly > available facts, but I'd rather see him get the nomination, because any well-informed, > good-looking high school kid whose puppy has parvo (to level the playing field) can > slaughter him in a debate. ... Never having had a dog, I had to look up parvo. Looks kind of nasty. But don't count Edwards out in a debate. He's won some big court cases against high priced lawyers. However, even if you're right, it looks like debating skill isn't what the American people vote for. For example, to quote a famous debater on the issue of Social Security whom the American people voted for twice for very high office: "Because the - all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those - changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be - or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled." (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushquotes/a/topbushisms2005.htm) Sorry I.P., I don't mean to wave red flags in front of you, but I couldn't hold myself back. Alan I think Hillary's stance on the Iraqi war is even funnier. I want all the troops out when I get into office, except I will keep some troops there. How many, I don't know but it will be the right amount. Unless of course we don't need to keep troops there. I voted to go to war except I never thought we would go to war. If I had to vote again, I would vote the same way except I'd make sure we didn't go to war. I'm against the war except when I need to be for the war. She has great command of the English language which is very important to have to be president. >>... >>I was about to present a much more informed picture of the man, based on publicly [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Alan My original posting was not "off-topic". Political commentary is. >I think Hillary's stance on the Iraqi war is even funnier. I want all the >troops out when I get into office, except I will keep some troops there. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> >> Alan > My original posting was not "off-topic". Political commentary is. I generally agree, until I remember how powerfully the next election may impact every single one of us in so many ways, probably more so than any election in U.S. history. Maybe some slack is appropriate, at least concerning those election issues that most clearly affect us. Any candidate that believes metastasized breast (and, by implication, prostate) cancer isn't ultimately terminal -- or would say that just to get elected -- isn't exactly promoting cancer awareness. I.P. > I think Hillary's stance on the Iraqi war is even funnier. I want all > the troops out when I get into office, except I will keep some troops [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > She has great command of the English language which is very important to > have to be president. >> "Because the - all which is on the table begins to address >> the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> Sorry I.P., I don't mean to wave red flags in front of you, >> but I couldn't hold myself back. With genuine apologies to Claude - A fact is never a red flag in any scenario I can think of; Bush is very often very inarticulate, and sometimes, as here, downright incomprehensible. But which is more important in a leader . . . a tangled tongue backed up by fairly consistent (for a politician) policies and action or an articulate tongue saying whatever each audience wants to hear and vowing to curtail Americans' individual freedoms because we have too many? Do "Cuber" and "bah" and "youse guys" sound any better than "newkular" and "y'all"? I.P. > However, even if you're right, it looks like debating skill isn't > what the American people vote for. I'm not referring to debate skill; I'm referring to knowledge and comprehension. Outside the courtroom, he demonstrates none in the political/policy arena, and almost as strongly as Ferraro said Elizabeth's treatment would provide her a long. healthy life, almost saying she wasn't cured but wouldn't be troubled by her cancer again because of treatment. But a pretty face and smooth manner will carry any politician a long ways in an election, which I find scary. I.P. Can we wait to haggle over the elections until a reasonable time before the elections? I'm sure very few here know anything about Mr. or Mrs. Edwards or their kids and pets. Vice Presidential candidates are clones of thier running mates and I imagine very few here have met them. I doubt very much that Edwards will still be in the running past September. There are few more opinionated than I and I'd just as soon put off the fun for maybe a year. > Can we wait to haggle over the elections until a reasonable time before the > elections? > I'd just as soon put off the fun for maybe a year. I suspect we should minimize it permanently, as the subject will inherently heat up dramatically next year, and that can't be good for any non-political forum. I was rudely awakened just 3-4 years ago to the *reason* politics shouldn't be discussed among friends or even promising acquaintances, especially in any kind of focus group such as this. How often I can remain silent when others bring it up remains to be seen and is highly dependent on the statement, as silence implies agreement and thus greases slippery slopes. I'll keep trying to stifle it. I.P. Old Geraldine is indeed out to lunch on this issue. I had dinner last evening with an oncologist and of course Elizabeth and her cancer came up. He said there is little doubt her cancer is aggressive, especially since it came back while she is probably taking some kind of five year course of medications designed to hold it in check or possibly cure it. He gives her two to four years, max. He also tells his patients to continue living the way they always have and it seems that's what the Edwards family is doing. More power to them and I wish prostate cancer on the insensitive jackass commentator who said Edwards displayed a lack of family values because he wasn't dropping out of the race to hold his ailing wife's hand. Dave Perry > I'm irritated by Geraldine Ferraro's public assurance that Elizabeth > Edwards will be just fine, that she should live a full, normal life [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I.P. > > I'm irritated by Geraldine Ferraro's public assurance that Elizabeth > > Edwards will be just fine, that she should live a full, normal life > > because breast cancer bone mets are permanently and completely > > manageable. Doesn't that mislead hundreds of thousands of breast cancer > > patients, or are breast cancer bone mets very different from ours? Maybe she says this because she was diagnosed in 1998 with multiple myeloma. She writes (danafarber.org): "We met with my doctor and talked about the prognosis. 'You're going to read that the survival rate is three to five years, but you don't have to believe it, because I have patients who've had it for 15 years and are doing well,'" he told us." Geraldine Ferraro is not a doctor but a cancer patient, so no one should rely on her medical opinions (and that should be made clear by the TV host). She can only speak of her experiences as a patient. It seems GF believes what she said. She beat the odds herself, and there are always a few lucky people who do. Husb and I were shocked just to see her on TV looking so good. We both thought she was long gone. I remember when she was first diagnosed and her prognosis seemed utterly dismal. But here she is. A responsible thing for a doctor to do would be to state the average life expectancy, and then, like Edwards' physician did, explain that this is not carved in stone. You have to give people some hope. L. > Maybe she says this because she was diagnosed in 1998 with multiple > myeloma. Multiple myleloma is, so far as I know, incurable and the prognosis is usually about three years. If she was dx'd 9 years ago, that would be amazing. >> Maybe she says this because she was diagnosed in 1998 with multiple >> myeloma. > > Multiple myleloma is, so far as I know, incurable and the prognosis is > usually about three years. If she was dx'd 9 years ago, that would be > amazing. Hers is multiple myeloma, dx in 1998, as Callalily says. But what really caught my eye is that she founded the Geraldine Ferraro Cancer Education Program, and is spending millions of your tax dollars telling breast cancer met pts treatment will provide them a long and normal life. That's carrying Bleeding Hart Disease too damned far! I.P. (snip) > I read somewhere that there is a relationship between breast cancer > and prostate cancer in genetic predisposition in families. Are there > any other similarities between the two cancers and/or similarities > in treatment for recurrent disease? Yes. Here is a summary on the topic: "Prostate cancer and breast cancer are so alike that we can learn much about both diseases by sharing our understanding of either. The genetic link between the two also relates to an increased risk of either disease when one disease is present in the family history." See, _A Primer on Prostate Cancer_ 2nd ed., subtitled "The Empowered Patient's Guide" by medical oncologist and PCa specialist Stephen B. Strum, MD and PCa warrior Donna Pogliano, page 31. On page 25, the authors refer to the "striking similarities regarding effective treatment for both." Also bear in mind that men can and do contract breast cancer. Regards, Steve J |
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.