Minnie
Beach Fanatic
Minnie you passed 100 Posts!!! Keep on, keepin' on, sista!
Thank you, thank you, and I am just getting warmed up.:sick:
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
-
Hello all! We will be performing a website & forum update soon. You may get logged out so now is the time to make sure your email address in your account is correct - go to your account to check it and update it now. Send us a message with your username and/or email address if you need help.
Hillary On Dave Last Night
- Thread starter seacrestkristi
- Start date
Thank you, thank you, and I am just getting warmed up.:sick:
30A Skunkape
Skunky
seacrestkristi
Beach Fanatic
Amen, I wonder why there is not more funding for ovarian cancer screening. 
The lady doc on the Today show this am said it is all because of economics. 
The research money is going elsewhere. Early screening could prevent so many deaths from this disease. It's usually diagnosed in later stages, which accounts for 15,000 deaths out of 23,000 cases being diagnosed in the US anually.
There needs to be a test to detect this early, like a mammogram. :roll: :angry:
The lady doc on the Today show this am said it is all because of economics. The research money is going elsewhere. Early screening could prevent so many deaths from this disease. It's usually diagnosed in later stages, which accounts for 15,000 deaths out of 23,000 cases being diagnosed in the US anually. There needs to be a test to detect this early, like a mammogram. :roll: :angry:
30A Skunkape
Skunky
Kristi, here is some data from the CDC for 2004 regarding causes of death:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 654,092
Cancer: 550,270 (Note this is ALL cancers)
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,147
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 123,884
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 108,694
Diabetes: 72,815
Alzheimer's disease: 65,829
Influenza/Pneumonia: 61,472
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,762
Septicemia: 33,464
I try to reassure women regarding ovarian cancer that statistically it is a fairly rare disease, as well as a rare cause of death, compromising only a small fraction of cancer related mortality. I know from experience it scares the living heck out of some women, but realistically, if the risk factors are not there, a woman is far more likely to die in a traffic accident, from a stroke, heart attack or pneumonia. I don't know if a screening test for ovarian cancer can be developed...many, many, many more women die of lung cancer, and there is no acceptable screening for that, either. Don't smoke, eat your veggies and live clean(just like your mama told you!) and you will be a healthy lady
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 654,092
Cancer: 550,270 (Note this is ALL cancers)
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,147
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 123,884
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 108,694
Diabetes: 72,815
Alzheimer's disease: 65,829
Influenza/Pneumonia: 61,472
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,762
Septicemia: 33,464
I try to reassure women regarding ovarian cancer that statistically it is a fairly rare disease, as well as a rare cause of death, compromising only a small fraction of cancer related mortality. I know from experience it scares the living heck out of some women, but realistically, if the risk factors are not there, a woman is far more likely to die in a traffic accident, from a stroke, heart attack or pneumonia. I don't know if a screening test for ovarian cancer can be developed...many, many, many more women die of lung cancer, and there is no acceptable screening for that, either. Don't smoke, eat your veggies and live clean(just like your mama told you!) and you will be a healthy lady
seacrestkristi
Beach Fanatic
I appreciate your research and statistics skunkape. I'm not scared of it but would rather see medicine focused in a procative rather than a reactive mode especially when hearing how so many women who died could've lived if it had not been for so many being diagnosed too late for successful treatment. Are you suggesting just forget about it or don't speak of it or just don't worry, or ...? Hey, I think I have just successfuly hijacked my own thread. Can I get a Hail yeah?
Are you suggesting just forget about it or don't speak of it or just don't worry, or ...? Hey, I think I have just successfuly hijacked my own thread. Can I get a Hail yeah?
30A Skunkape
Skunky
No, I am not saying forget about it by any means. It would be nice if there was a screening test like there is for cervical cancer, but at this point, the research dollars are better spent on larger public health threats. It is a tough decision to make-are finite research dollars better spent researching pediatric cancer or on a pretty rare cancer found in (generally) older women? There is no right answer, but decisons need to be made, nonetheless
seacrestkristi
Beach Fanatic
It would be nice to see more women involved in these decisions, especially if she was the president. ;-)
rapunzel
Beach Fanatic
I think that the people who make the decisions regarding resources are allocating the money to the places it will do the greatest good for the most people. A market economy tends to shake out that way, where as a social medicine program is often going to be influenced by agendas and political arguments.
While I agree that it is tragic when young women like Gilda Radner succumb to ovarian cancer, I recognize that majority of women who develop ovarian cancer in middle age or before are BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 positive, meaning they carry the gene that causes breast and ovarian cancer. And, fortunately, there is a test for the gene mutations that cause these types of cancer. The terrible thing about this disease, though, and the reason many women choose not to have the genetic testing, is that the treatment is so terrible -- removal of the ovaries without hormone replacement therapy resulting in premature menopause, infertility, pain during intercourse, etc. It's a lot to ask of a 30 year old woman to face such things.
Personally, I think the money allocated to ovarian cancer would be better spent finding treatments for BRCA+ women that would make it possible for them to live a normal life, rather than a screening test. I know many pathology labs are lobbying hard for those dollars, but it's just not the way to go. I'd rather see us support real laws that would protect people from having genetic testing results used to discriminate against them in the arenas of employment and insurance. I'd rather see the money spent developing residency and fellowship programs to train surgeons to do skin-sparing mastectomies and innovative reconstruction techniques such as DIEP and GAP, to study hormone replacement drugs that will preserve a woman's femininity without feeding the cancers, and on post-oophrectomy egg freezing that would preserve fertility.
When ovarian cancer strikes young women, it is usually related to BRCA. 40% of women with a mutation will develop ovarian cancer in their lifetime. 80% of them will develop breast cancer. The American Society of Breast Surgeons states that BRCA mutations are rare in the general population, occurring in 1 in 400-800 individuals, but high risk populations exist and include persons with:
1. early onset breast cancer (diagnosed before age 50)
2. two primary breast cancers, either bilateral or ipsilateral
3. a family history of early onset breast cancer
4. male breast cancer
5. a personal or family history of ovarian cancer (particularly non-mucinous types)
6. Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jewish heritage
7. a previously identified BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in the family
If Gilda Radner had looked at this list, she would have realized that she was at high risk of ovarian cancer. Would she have chosen to have a bilateral mastectomy and oophrectomy? I doubt it...she was young and in love with her husband and wanted children. Would she have chosen a course of treatment that could lead to immediate infertility and her bowel perforating through her vaginal wall 6 months later? (Yes, that happens.) I don't think so.
While I agree that it is tragic when young women like Gilda Radner succumb to ovarian cancer, I recognize that majority of women who develop ovarian cancer in middle age or before are BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 positive, meaning they carry the gene that causes breast and ovarian cancer. And, fortunately, there is a test for the gene mutations that cause these types of cancer. The terrible thing about this disease, though, and the reason many women choose not to have the genetic testing, is that the treatment is so terrible -- removal of the ovaries without hormone replacement therapy resulting in premature menopause, infertility, pain during intercourse, etc. It's a lot to ask of a 30 year old woman to face such things.
Personally, I think the money allocated to ovarian cancer would be better spent finding treatments for BRCA+ women that would make it possible for them to live a normal life, rather than a screening test. I know many pathology labs are lobbying hard for those dollars, but it's just not the way to go. I'd rather see us support real laws that would protect people from having genetic testing results used to discriminate against them in the arenas of employment and insurance. I'd rather see the money spent developing residency and fellowship programs to train surgeons to do skin-sparing mastectomies and innovative reconstruction techniques such as DIEP and GAP, to study hormone replacement drugs that will preserve a woman's femininity without feeding the cancers, and on post-oophrectomy egg freezing that would preserve fertility.
When ovarian cancer strikes young women, it is usually related to BRCA. 40% of women with a mutation will develop ovarian cancer in their lifetime. 80% of them will develop breast cancer. The American Society of Breast Surgeons states that BRCA mutations are rare in the general population, occurring in 1 in 400-800 individuals, but high risk populations exist and include persons with:
1. early onset breast cancer (diagnosed before age 50)
2. two primary breast cancers, either bilateral or ipsilateral
3. a family history of early onset breast cancer
4. male breast cancer
5. a personal or family history of ovarian cancer (particularly non-mucinous types)
6. Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jewish heritage
7. a previously identified BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in the family
If Gilda Radner had looked at this list, she would have realized that she was at high risk of ovarian cancer. Would she have chosen to have a bilateral mastectomy and oophrectomy? I doubt it...she was young and in love with her husband and wanted children. Would she have chosen a course of treatment that could lead to immediate infertility and her bowel perforating through her vaginal wall 6 months later? (Yes, that happens.) I don't think so.
Last edited:
NoHall
hmmmm......can't remember
I appreciate your research and statistics skunkape. I'm not scared of it but would rather see medicine focused in a procative rather than a reactive mode especially when hearing how so many women who died could've lived if it had not been for so many being diagnosed too late for successful treatment.
Are you saying it should be mandantory?
Punzy, you seem like you're ridiculously smart... I don't know if I should love you or fear you! (I hope to meet you, either way!)
Last edited: