Breast Cancer: Reducing the Risk of Unnecessary Chemo

[HuckleB]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101108171541.htm

"A fundamental principle of medicine is: "first, do no harm." However, for doctors who treat breast cancer, this is easier said than done. Every year, almost 22,000 Canadian women are diagnosed with breast cancer -- their treatment usually involves surgery to remove a tumour and then chemotherapy to reduce the risk of cancer returning. But studies show that for most patients with early stage breast cancer, chemotherapy following surgery is totally unnecessary and therefore does more harm than good.

Identifying whether a patient's cancer is at low or high risk of recurring would help doctors reduce unnecessary treatments for low risk patients. This could have a huge impact on a patient's quality of life and also significantly reduce the cost of health care.

Currently, most doctors assess a patient's prognosis using their age and "tumour grade," but this approach doesn't work very well. Now, NRC researchers have developed a tool to determine which breast cancer patients have little risk of their disease recurring. The tool -- an algorithm that identifies "gene expression signatures" or biomarkers that can predict low risk tumours with 87-100 percent accuracy in different groups of patients -- has the potential to virtually eliminate unnecessary chemotherapy.

To conduct their study, which appeared in a recent issue of Nature Communications, Dr. Edwin Wang and his colleagues at the NRC Biotechnology Research Institute in Montreal (NRC-BRI) used published data on gene expression profiles from more than 1000 breast cancer samples. "Every tumour has a gene expression profile, which indicates how the patient's genes have changed," he explains. "We combined this data with information on the patient's outcome -- such as whether the original tumour spread and how long the person survived -- to develop our algorithm."

..."


-----------------------------------------------


Now why on earth would these so called doctors try to use science to improve the care they provide to their patients? Why this just shows how horrible Western Allopathic "medicine" is, in the first place! Science is for people who can't handle living with certainty!!!!

:hi:

[DesertFlower]

1. there's a lot of money to be made

using chemotherapy. i personally would never have chemo or radiation. i believe in strengthening the immune system not destroying it.

flame away.

[HuckleB]

2. Actually, you just offered a flame against science.

Nice spin.

:boring:

[DesertFlower]

3. i suggest you read suzanne somers latest

book "knockout -- interviews with doctors who are curing cancer without chemo". chemo only works on certain cancers. one of them is testicular. i'd have to look up the other 2, but i'm too tired.
i'm going to bed.

[HuckleB]

4. Now there's a trusted source.

Oh brother.

:eyes:

Suzanne Somers’ Knockout: Dangerous misinformation about cancer (part 1)
PS: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2244

Health Author Suzanne Somers Mostly Wrong About Science, Medicine
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human-condition/2009/10/23/breaking-health-author-suzanne-somers-mostly-wrong-about-science-medicine.html

[DesertFlower]

5. of course, she's a beautiful actress,

what does she know?

she's got a lot of doctors who agree with her.

https://www.newsmaxstore.com/newsletters/blaylock/knockout2.cfm?promo_code=29F5-1

[HuckleB]

6. Actually, most doctors don't agree with her, and that's being kind.

Why are you posting crap from a right wing whacko sales outfit?

A much needed reality check...

Suzanne Somers’ Knockout: Dangerous misinformation about cancer (part 1)
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2244

Health Author Suzanne Somers Mostly Wrong About Science, Medicine
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human-condition/2009/10/23/breaking-health-author-suzanne-somers-mostly-wrong-about-science-medicine.htm

The Suzanne Somers Vanity Calamity, part 4: All her quacks in a row
http://www.lymphomainfo.net/blog/general-lymphoma-blogs/the-suzanne-somers-vanity-calamity-part-4-all-her-quacks-in-a-row

[DesertFlower]

7. of course there trying to discredit her.

like i said chemo is good business.

if someone wants to go that route that's their choice.

my views are my personal ones. as long as i can remember i've been against it.

my mom (may she rest in peace) told me to never ever let them give her chemo or radiation. fortunately she did not have cancer.

my husband believes differently. i had a breast cancer scare about 5 years ago. he was out of town on business. when he called that night i told him what the doctor thought he had felt. then i said "chemotherapy and radiation are topics that are not open for discussion". turned out to be nothing.

good night. sorry to disappoint you, but i'm not going to argue with you. you can post all the links you want. maybe someone else will read them.

on edit: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/salud_defeatcancer24.htm

[HuckleB]

9. Science discredits her.

She and her "doctors" are selling dangerous, unproven, ineffective nonsense, and yet you find that to be just okey dokey.

This is about evidence, and your belief appears to be one based in the netherworld, rather than in the world of evidence. You have the right to that belief, however, if you are going to push that upon others, know that what you are pushing is dangerous.

BTW, you are the one who has argued for the sake of arguing (or for the sake of convincing others to put themselves in grave danger). You posted a response to the OP that made no sense, if one is discussing actual science and evidence, and you've continued to respond similarly, while willfully choosing to ignore the actual evidence of the matter.

[DesertFlower]

15. i'm not trying to convince anyone. everyone

makes their own choices.

[HuckleB]

17. If that were so, you wouldn't be pushing a book of the type you pushed.

[DesertFlower]

19. i'm not pushing it. i'm suggesting

that people read it. i had it with me when i had a doctor's appointment. he said "she's got some very interesting information".

have you been sitting at your computer for the last 14 hours waiting for me to respond? i have nothing more to say on this subject.

[HuckleB]

20. You're pushing it, regardless of the language twists you want to employ.

You have responded repeatedly with discredited, dangerous nonsense. Further, your hypocritical attempts at smearing me with ad hominem BS are nothing short of hilarious.

[DesertFlower]

21. i'm putting you on "ignore".

[HuckleB]

22. Awesome!

Of course the question remains: Why put me on ignore, but not yourself?

Besides, your posts make it clear that you already ignore everything but your own baseless preconceptions.

[trotsky]

8. NEWSMAX?!?

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

30. With Russell Blaylock espousing his usual tidal wave of right wing quackery...

... but this poster isn't pushing anything. Oh no.

:rofl: Indeed.

[bemildred]

10. Yeah, I watched my brother die of liver cancer last year.

He was gone 7 months after the diagnosis. Taking chemo and lots of other stuff the whole time. I was wondering the whole time should we be giving all this stuff to a guy with a long history of liver and GI problems? They were giving him Vicodin for pain, and we talked them out of that because of the Acetominaphen. Tramadol worked pretty good and didn't seem to make him as "dopey".

But anyway, I'd have to have a good reason to do that, just dying without too much fuss when the time comes could look pretty good.

[DesertFlower]

18. i agree. sorry for your loss.

[BuddhaGirl]

11. +1

my FIL, god rest his soul, was an example of that.

You are spot on about the $$$ made with chemotherapy. :mad:

[HuckleB]

14. Chemotherapy versus death from cancer

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4772

[evirus]

23. the immune system doesn't fight cancer

who do i call to revoke your highschool diploma?

[CatsDogsBabies]

24. one of the problems

with coming up with effective treatments is that cancer cells are a person's own cells, so the immune system does not recognize them as foreign. So, strengthening the immune system won't cure cancer. And, people with good immune systems do and can get cancer. I think some new vaccine therapies are very promising though, even some for breast cancer. I don't know much about them (evidenced by my lack of technical language!), but I think they are designed to get your body to see cancer cells as "outsiders" so the body can respond by attacking them.

[DesertFlower]

25. who do i call to teach you how to

respond without being rude?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/33693.php

you're going on "ignore" too.

[bemildred]

27. ??

Although the foregoing description of the immune response applies mainly to viruses and bacteria, it is important to note that the immune system reacts in a similar manner when it encounters cancer cells, which it also recognizes as foreign or “non-self” and therefore, must destroy. Scientists have observed in the laboratory that the cells and other components of the immune system are capable of destroying malignant tumor cells. They have found that certain antibodies that recognize tumor cells help the macrophages and the natural killer cells to accomplish their mission. Over the years, further study of the immune system has demonstrated that the body defends itself against cancer in much the same way that it seeks to eliminate other intruders such as bacteria and viruses. Further study of the immune system is expected to reveal ways to bolster it, allowing the body to become a more active partner in the fight against cancer.

http://www.cancerresearch.org/resources/cancer-immune-system/cellular-immunity.html

[HuckleB]

29. That's not entirely true, though one can't "boost" one's immune system to fight cancer.

Your statement is true for many cancers, however.

Giving Cancer Vaccines a Boost
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2005/11/23-02.html

"In humans, some cancers disable the immune system by forcing the body to make more of a class of regulatory T cells that suppress immune responses. Reducing the number of these regulatory T cells prior to administering the vaccine might boost the odds of success."

[HuckleB]

26. Boost Your Immune System?

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1828

and another take on the same question...

http://genome.fieldofscience.com/2008/03/boost-your-immune-system.html

[HuckleB]

28. Why the Immune System Ignores Cancer

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/podcasts/show/2010.11.08-1/

[Dorian Gray]

31. Sadly

chemo or radiation seem extreme, but for those suffering with cancer, the treatment may be the only way to survive. So, I would never say never. Preventative medicine is all well and good, but it's not guaranteed to protect from cancer.

[CatsDogsBabies]

12. Is this what oncotype testing is?

I know people with early stage hormone positive breast cancer do the oncotype test in the United States to determine whether chemo is necessary. Of course they are making progress in actually determining who will benefit from chemo. I had very early stage high grade invasive triple negative breast cancer. I took all the chemo they would give me. I even asked for more, but was told that I had as much as was reasonable given my diagnosis. For some types of breast cancer, chemotherapy can be very, very effective (and some new regimens are even more effective!). In my case, to reject chemotherapy would have been very foolish. I know that for the type of cancer I had, a German study (this info is in the San ANtonio BC conference abstracts from 2009) showed an 86% 5 year disease free survival for people who followed all recommended therapies. For those who rejected at least one recommended treatment recommendation (most commonly radiation) the 5 year disease free survival was around 74%. And, the disease free survival was considerably lower for people who were unwilling to see that in some adverse situations (diagnosed with cancer) a course of chemotherapy and radiation treatments might actually be the lesser of two evils.

[HuckleB]

13. It sounds a lot like it.

This is a short piece on this research, but hopefully this takes the oncotype testing model further down the road.

Thank you for your informed and very interesting response.

[DesertFlower]

16. glad to hear you're doing well.

[LeftishBrit]

32. Encouraging news...

the more that treatment can be targeted to the individual's needs, the better. If it becomes possible to ensure that just the people who *need* chemo get it, that would be great.