Monday, May 7, 2012


Harriet and Survivorship

 share
 
by Sarah A.O. Isenberg
It’s with a heavy heart, a pit in my stomach, and tears in my eyes that I write this essay on survivorship. Yesterday, they buried a woman who played a pivotal role in my cancer experience. Her name was Harriet. She was a psychologist who worked with an organization dedicated to helping people living with cancer navigate the experience. From support groups to art therapy to journaling groups to qi gong, this community served as a haven for people living with cancer. A place to go where so much was understood from the get-go. Where there were no platitudes. Where people were real: They understood the gravity of the situation; that some of us would be lucky and survive the ordeal, and that some of us wouldn’t, but that the “ride” along the way mattered, so much.
When I was diagnosed in 2001 with my first breast cancer, I didn’t know anything about survivorship, but I knew, of course, that I wanted to be amongst the group that lived through cancer and came out the other side. I also knew that there were no support groups for young women living with breast cancer in the Boston area. I was introduced to Harriet through connections in the breast cancer community, and she agreed to create and facilitate the first-ever support group for women like me. Every week, a large group of young women showed up for this group. Harriet helped us guide ourselves through the experience, and if we were lucky, the “after.”

Harriet hated the “battle metaphors” people used to describe the experience of living with cancer. She thought, and I agree, that somehow surviving the battle carried a connotation of having fought hard and well, while dying at the end suggested you didn’t labor hard enough to win. Harriet reminded us that so much of cancer survivorship is luck of the draw. It’s happenstance: You happen to catch it in time, the treatments happen to work, you happen to escape metastases. You get more time, well, just because. She helped each of the women in the group figure out how she wanted to describe what was happening, how she wanted to frame the experience. And all the while, she helped us see the good around us – even on days when that seemed most impossible.

Harriet also allowed me to hold the meetings for the local chapter of the young women’s breast cancer organization I ran at her office. Here again, every week young women gathered and organized, reaching out to others and drawing them into the fold. Comforted by the warmth of understanding and togetherness in a time of deep despair.

And over time, because of Harriet, a very tight community of young women living with breast cancer was formed. That was over ten years ago, and yesterday at Harriet’s funeral, many of us were there. There were women missing, too – there’ve been many funerals over the years. That’s the penance of survivorship . . . you have to watch those you grew close to be buried. But Harriet taught me that the blessings of survivorship are rich indeed. And I see now that with every death (and the feelings of anger, terror and sadness each brings) comes a renewed awareness of how precious this time is, for all of us. Those living with cancer understand, acutely, that everything can change in an instant. That all you take for granted can be whisked out from under you by three simple words: “You have cancer.”

It’s not hyperbole to say that Harriet helped define my experience as someone who’s lived with cancer in the most pivotal and important way possible. She helped me to create and define my life after cancer. One that is much richer and better than before. Harriet “got” this. I’d never say that having had cancer was a gift, but Harriet gave me tools that helped me to acknowledge the gravity of my situation, while simultaneously squeezing goodness out of it. She helped me make lemonade. Revel in possibility. She introduced me to the power of hope.

And for all this, dear Harriet, you will live forever in my heart and mind.


Sarah Isenberg is a recovering lawyer, two-time breast cancer survivor and accomplished home cook with a penchant for whole foods, healthy living, green tea and black shoes. She lives just outside Boston, Massachusetts with her 8-year-old daughter, husband, and a fancy hamster named Ruby. Get the latest on what she’s cooking at Semi-Sweet: A Practical Guide to Healthy Living, or on the joys and trials of her dance with cancer at Be The Weeble. 

Saturday, May 5, 2012


Life, Interrupted: Cancer Is Awkward

VOICES |   | May 3, 2012, 6:38 AM 65 Comments
Suleika Jaouad is undergoing a bone marrow transplant for leukemia.Ashley WooSuleika Jaouad is undergoing a bone marrow transplant for leukemia.
Disease has a way of invading your social space, forcing your hand. Will you tell your family and close friends only? What about acquaintances and work mates? Will you share your diagnosis on Facebook? Who knew cancer needed a social consultant?
I’ve struggled with the awkwardness of cancer ever since my leukemia was diagnosed last May. When I told people my news, some people froze, falling silent. One person immediately began telling a story of an aunt who had died from the same kind of leukemia. “Will you lose your hair?” someone blurted out. “Are you going to die?” an ex-boyfriend asked.
Breaking the news of my diagnosis felt like an existential game show in which people rushed to buzz in with the first thought that came to mind.
I admit to sometimes being hurt by the way my friends have reacted to my news. Some didn’t write or call at all. Those who did often sounded uncomfortable and distant. I needed their support, and I wondered where they were.
When I was first in the hospital, some of my visitors seemed so intent on not upsetting me that they avoided the topic of cancer altogether. Others just couldn’t seem to find any words. When two college friends came to visit, I watched their faces fall as they took in the sight of my bald head and sunken cheekbones. The last time we’d seen each other was at graduation, over diplomas and flutes of Champagne. An awkward silence ensued, and I sensed it was up to me to take the initiative. I took a deep breath: “So, can you believe how weird I look without any hair?”
But in the year since my diagnosis, my feelings of hurt have given way to understanding. How can I expect anyone to produce the perfect, reflexive response to such sudden and unpleasant news? Cancer can catch even the best of us off guard. Sometimes the emotions come pouring out. Sometimes they stay locked inside. I’ve realized that it’s nearly impossible to summon the “right” words while simultaneously processing the news that someone you love has a life-threatening illness. I find myself counseling my friends and family that there is no perfect thing to say — but that they just have to say something.
And I admit to making my own mistakes. Four years ago during my freshman year in college, my childhood friend Chris revealed to me that he had Stage 3 testicular cancer. As he described how the cancer had spread to his abdominal region and lungs, I clammed up. I said a few rote phrases and fled as soon as I could. I didn’t call or write to him again for several months.
Over the course of those months, I thought of him often. I had repeated conversations, at the dinner table or on the way to class, about what my friend must be going through and how badly I wanted to help. My feelings were genuine, I even remember drafting and redrafting a letter to him. But I couldn’t find the right words. In the end, I never sent it. I was scared. Frozen. To him, it must have seemed as if I just didn’t care.
A few months ago, in the middle of my fourth round of chemo, I reached out to Chris and asked him to go with me to a support group for young adults with cancer. It was our first time seeing each other since he had fallen ill.
My own cancer experience has taught me that the most comforting words from friends have often been both the simplest and the most honest. As Chris and I drove in the car to the meeting, I felt guilty, but I also felt lucky to have the chance to finally speak openly about how I had let him down. “I’m sorry I wasn’t there for you,” I told him.
He nodded and told me not to worry.
We still had a few miles to go. I was looking out the window at the Adirondack Mountains, the area where Chris and I grew up. Maybe we could be friends again, a prospect I thought I’d surely ruined years ago. We sat in silence for the rest of the drive. But it was a silence without awkwardness. We both were lost in our thoughts, but not too far from each other.

New Data Improve Understanding of Breast Cancer's Multiple Varieties

ScienceDaily (May 3, 2012) — New findings presented at 4th IMPAKT Breast Cancer Conference this year shed new light on the many biological differences between individual breast cancers.
Focused on the biological features that make tumors more or less sensitive to important therapies, the new studies will help doctors make crucial choices about the most appropriate treatment for millions of patients.
"Despite major advances in the treatment of breast cancer many patients continue to relapse and die from the disease," noted Prof Mitch Dowsett from the Royal Marsden Hospital, UK, former IMPAKT Chair. "Studies presented at this year's IMPAKT further emphasize the potential of biomarkers to identify new targets for developing therapy to disease that is resistant to our current treatments as well as the groups of patients most likely to respond to the new treatments. In this way we are progressively reducing the threat posed by a diagnosis of breast cancer and doing this in a personalized fashion."
A possible mechanism for endocrine resistance
An experimental model of breast cancer has yielded exciting new insights into why some breast cancers become resistant to endocrine therapies such as tamoxifen, say researchers from the US and Italy. Their findings could lead to new treatments and prognostic tests for the disease.
"Endocrine resistance in breast cancer is a major clinical issue. Despite years of studies, we still have an incomplete view of the molecular mechanisms that determine endocrine resistance and this limits the potential for developing new therapeutics," explained Dr Luca Malorni, from the Hospital of Prato, Italy and the Breast Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston-TX.
Previous observations from his group and others suggested that the transcription factor AP-1 might play a relevant role in endocrine resistance. AP-1 is known to regulate gene expression in response to a variety of stimuli.
To clarify this issue, they used a genetic mechanism to block the AP-1 pathway in mice and cell culture. The researchers report that inhibiting AP-1 enhanced the effects of tamoxifen and delayed the development of tamoxifen resistance. Their data suggest that specific drugs with 'AP-1 inhibitory' effects might be useful in combination with available endocrine agents to develop new, more efficacious treatments.
"Fully understanding the biology behind endocrine resistance is the first step to design new drugs. I think that our data represent such a step forward," Dr Malorni said. "At the same time, our data might be helpful in deriving new biomarkers that could identify patients at higher risk of developing endocrine resistance. This might be an important contribution as today we are able to only partially predict response to endocrine treatment with the available biomarkers."
The researchers propose that endocrine resistance develops when the estrogen receptor 'switches' from its classical direct binding to specific estrogen responsive elements in the tumor genome, to an indirect DNA binding program via AP-1.
"In this light, AP-1 cooperation with estrogen receptor might be considered as a fundamental feature of the endocrine-resistant breast cancer cell. We cannot exclude, however, that AP-1 activity independently of ER is also important. More studies are needed to dissect these different mechanisms," Dr Malorni said.
"I hope that our data could stimulate researchers in this field to consider in their studies the 'switch' in estrogen receptor activity that we are proposing," the researcher added. "For instance, common techniques to evaluate estrogen receptor activity in vitro rely only on measurements of ERE-related functions. Our data suggest that this might be an incomplete view that needs to be implemented with measurements of other estrogen receptor functions as well, such as those that are related to AP-1."
A marker for response to neoadjuvant anthracycline/taxane chemotherapy
Breast cancers that express low levels of the protein mucin-1 tend to respond better to pre-surgical chemotherapy with anthracyclines and taxanes, say German researchers.
Dr Bruno Sinn from Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin and colleagues from the German Breast Group set out to evaluate how many breast cancers express the gene MUC1, and whether expression of this gene could help predict response and survival after neoadjuvant anthracycline/taxane-based chemotherapy.
"Mucins are present on the internal surface of different organs throughout the body, including the gastrointestinal tract, the lungs and the breast glands," Dr Sinn explained. "In healthy tissues, their role is mainly to protect and to lubricate these surfaces. Mucins, among them mucin-1, have also been shown to be very frequently and abundantly present in tumor cells like breast cancer cells. In cancer, mucin-1 is often present in an altered form and in abnormal locations of the cell. In laboratory experiments, it has been shown that mucin-1 interacts with several cellular signaling networks that may contribute to the malignant behavior of the cells." Interestingly, it is also known that mucin-1 plays a role in the interaction of tumor cells with the immune system of the patient. Abnormal mucin-1 on cancer cells may serve as an antigen that helps to induce the patient's immune system to attack and remove these cells.
The researchers studied tumor biopsy samples from a previous clinical trial of the German Breast Group. In 691 samples, they tested for the presence of the MUC1 protein, and in 268 they explored expression of messenger RNA for the gene. They could detect MUC1 in 656 (95%) cases, and the level of mRNA for the gene varied 1000-fold between tumors.
"High MUC1 protein and mRNA expression were seen more frequently in hormone-receptor positive tumors," Dr Sinn said. "On the other hand, tumors that were hormone receptor negative and HER2 negative had lower MUC1 protein and mRNA expression compared to other subtypes."
The different molecular subtypes of breast cancer, mainly defined by the presence or absence of estrogen receptor and the cell-surface protein HER2, have important implications for the treatment and prognosis of breast cancer. One goal of the current study was to evaluate the frequency of mucin-1 expression among the different subtypes, to provide hints as to which subtypes are most likely to benefit from a therapy that targets mucin-1.
"We could demonstrate that high mucin-1 is more frequently observed in hormone-receptor positive and HER2 negative breast cancer," Dr Sinn said. "The lowest levels were detected in triple negative cases, i.e. tumors without evidence of estrogen-receptor and HER2. However, even in triple negative breast cancers, mucin-1 was high in 44% of cases."
This data indicates an important role for mucin-1 in breast cancer biology that differs among the various breast cancer subtypes, Dr Sinn said. "The results are of particular interest because currently there are tumor vaccines being tested in clinical trials that induce the patient's immune system to attack cells that carry mucin-1. These agents have already shown efficacy in lung cancer and could be also promising agents in the treatment of breast cancer."
When the researchers correlated the expression of the protein and mRNA with the patient's response to chemotherapy, they found that low levels of expression were predictive for pathological complete response --or eradication of the invasive tumor. This correlation held true for the overall population and in the subgroups of hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative and HR+/HER2- tumors.
"MUC1 is frequently expressed in a large cohort of breast cancers, especially in hormone-receptor positive tumors," the researchers observed. "Its evaluation is feasible by immunohistochemistry and quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR and provides information on therapy response and survival following neoadjuvant chemotherapy."
"Mucin-1 could be a promising target in future cancer therapy," Dr Sinn added. "Agents that stimulate the patient's immune system to attack cells carrying mucin-1 are currently being tested in clinical trials. Determination of mucin-1 by the methods we described in our study may help to select patients that are likely to benefit from such a therapy."
Gene index predicts response to endocrine therapy
Researchers from Germany and the US have confirmed that a 165-gene index can predict survival among breast cancer patients who are treated with endocrine therapies in combination with surgery.
The Sensitivity to Endocrine Therapy (SET) index[1] has been reported in the past to predict survival benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy, independently of prognosis. In the new study, Dr Thomas Karn from Goethe University in Frankfurt and colleagues set up a blinded study to prospectively validate the index's ability to predict survival in an unpublished retrospective cohort of 307 estrogen-receptor positive primary breast cancers treated solely with endocrine therapy.
Dr Karn and colleagues provided gene expression profiles from 261 patients to the developers of SET without any clinical information. The latters then categorized them into classes based on published pre-specified cutoffs.
Once the analysis had been completed, Dr Karn's group analyzed the relationships between the SET classifications and clinical outcomes for the patients.
They found that patients in the low, intermediate and high SET classes did not differ in age, tumor size, lymph node or HER2 status. However, lower SET significantly correlated with higher grade tumors and negative progesterone-receptor status.
"In the lymph node negative cohort we observed a significant difference in five-year disease-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival for patients with low SET," Dr Karn said. "Furthermore we found no prognostic value of SET in lymph node positive patients."
An exploratory analysis suggested that SET is unrelated to other prognostic signatures, the researchers note.

Satisfaction with Prophylactic Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction in Genetically Predisposed Women




 
  • 350 leading medical journals
  • 28 specialties covered
  • Ranked, rated and reviewed by experts
  • Delivered on your terms
Subscribe
Satisfaction with Prophylactic Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction in Genetically Predisposed Women
Bresser, P.J.C., Seynaeve, C., Van Gool, A.R. | Plast Reconstr Surg | vol. 117, 1675 - 1682, 2006
To view our Expert Rating and Evidence RankLogin or SubscribeRead the ArticleRate this Article

SUBJECT Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Women's Health  >  Gynecology

Abstract

Background: 
Prophylactic mastectomy with breast reconstruction is a risk-reducing strategy for women at increased risk of breast cancer. It remains a very radical intervention, and long-term data on satisfaction are insufficiently available. In the present follow-up study, the authors assess satisfaction with prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction and its impact on sexual relationships.
Methods: 
The authors conducted a retrospective study using a short self-report questionnaire administered to 114 genetically predisposed women who underwent prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction mainly by subpectorally implanted silicone prostheses performed at one institution.
Results: 
The median follow-up time between prophylactic mastectomy/breast reconstruction and completion of the questionnaire was 3 years. Sixty percent of all participants were satisfied with the result of prophylactic mastectomy/breast reconstruction. Satisfaction was significantly and negatively correlated with perceived lack of information, experienced complications, ongoing complaints, whether or not the reconstructed breasts feel “like your own,” and not choosing this type of breast reconstruction again. Adverse effects in the patient's sexual relationship were strongly correlated with perceived lack of information, discrepant expectations, ongoing complaints and limitations, whether or not the reconstructed breasts feel “like your own,” altered feelings of femininity, partner's negative perception on femininity and sexuality, and not choosing this type of breast reconstruction again.
Conclusions: 
A majority of women would choose the procedure again, but adverse effects and untoward changes in the perception of the sexual relationship need to be addressed in the counselling of women at high risk, to optimize an informed choice and enable adequate adjustment postoperatively.

Friday, May 4, 2012

What minimally invasive or robotic surgical procedures are options for cervical cancer patients?


PedroRamirezMD (Physician (Verified) ) - 05 / 04 / 2012
Minimally invasive surgery offers patients the benefits of a much faster recovery and quicker return to daily activities. It also provides a quicker return of bowel function and less requirements for pain medications. Robotic surgery is the latest technology in the minimally invasive approach.

Patients with early stage (stage IA2-IB1) cervical cancer are traditionally treated by radical hysterectomy. This procedure removes the cervix, uterus, the parametria (tissue immediately adjacent to the cervix) and the pelvic lymph nodes. It is now commonly performed by the laparoscopic or the robotic approach. This has been associated with less blood loss, transfusion rates, and shorter length of hospitalization. It has also been associated with lower postoperative complication rates.

For patients with early stage cervical cancer who are interested in future fertility, there is the option of a radical trachelectomy. In this procedure, the cervix and parametria are removed, along with pelvic nodes, but the uterus is intact and reattached to the vagina so that the patient will be able to get pregnant in the future. A select number of centers around the country are now also performing this procedure by the robotics approach. Results show that the blood loss and hospitalization after the robotics approach is less than when the procedure is performed through the open approach.

What are Breasts For?


What Are Breasts For? 

In Breasts: A Natural and Unnatural History, Florence Williams expounds on the good things mammary glands have done for us—and their new role as purveyor to our infants of environmental toxins.
How have people responded to your writing a book about breasts?
It was a little bit awkward when I would tell the elderly relatives about it. I would get these funny looks, and I think my husband had similar responses when he would tell his colleagues. But when I described the book more and told them it was really about health and the environment, then everyone was really interested and excited about it.
We live in a society that fetishizes breasts, and yet as environmental pollutants are absorbed into breast milk, we’re destroying their function. Is there a paradox there?
I think there is definitely a disconnect between how we live our lives and what that lifestyle does to our bodies. There is a lot of compelling evidence to suggest that the things we eat and the substances in our lives affect our bodies on a cellular level. Part of my hope with this book is to help raise awareness about environmental health.
You describe how women scientists have brought a new perspective to our understanding of why breasts evolved—to nourish babies, not to attract men.
Absolutely. What I love about the evolution-of-breasts debate is that it really reveals everyone’s biases. I think Desmond Morris’s theories [that breasts developed to attract male partners] really reflect a certain time in modern 20th-century Western life. It is fun to poke holes in that and reflect on it. If we buy into the idea that the purpose of breasts is to serve men, then that does a disservice to the message we try to send young girls about their body types, and to mothers about the importance of lactation.
Has writing this book changed how you talk to your daughters on this subject?
Yes, absolutely. I think it is very important to talk to our daughters about social pressures and expectations, and how those may not be rooted in reality. One of the things that struck me, writing this book, was the power of the Internet in shaping young people’s perspective about body types. Most young people are seeing so many more images of augmented breasts or fake breasts than we ever did. There is so much porn on the Internet and young people are looking at it. Most of those breasts are not natural breasts.
You present evidence that girls are reaching puberty earlier, which increases their risk of getting breast cancer. Highly athletic girls tend to have delayed onset of menstruation. Does that protect them against breast cancer?
The athleticism does seem protective. This is not only true for adolescents, but across the lifetime of women. The more athletic you are, the lower your chance of breast cancer. It still benefits you if you start exercising later in life.

Under what circumstances can photodynamic therapy be used to treat cancer? Why not more?

Topics (Tags):
Diseases:
Answers (1)
StephenHahnMD (Physician - Oncology - Radiation (Verified) ) - 05 / 04 / 2012
Photodynamic therapy is a cancer treatment in which a patient receives (typically by vein) a special light sensitive drug followed by the delivery of a specific type of laser light to a tumor. The drug in the tumor is activated by laser light which kills cancer cells. We can focus the laser light on a tumor and minimize the amount of laser light on the normal tissues thereby limiting side effects. Currently photodynamic therapy is approved by the FDA in lung cancer for the treatment of tumors within the trachea or bronchus (breathing tubes) that are causing obstruction. It is also approved for esophageal cancers that are causing obstruction of the esophagus (swallowing tube) and some precancerous conditions of the esophagus and skin.

Photodynamic therapy cannot be used for all cancers because it is not possible to delivery an adequate dose of laser light to some tumors. In other words, they may be inaccessible. At Penn Medicine, we have one of the largest photodynamic therapy research programs in the world and are currently studying its use in patients with a tumor the chest called mesothelioma.