Friday, July 13, 2012


Hollye Harrington Jacobs

GET UPDATES FROM HOLLYE HARRINGTON JACOBS

Waiting for a Cancer Diagnosis

Posted: 07/12/2012 2:50 pm

The period of time when you are waiting for a diagnosis is brutal. There's really no other way to describe it. As a nurse-turned-patient, I really had no idea just how difficult this waiting period really is. Waiting for my diagnosis of FBC (f-bomb breast cancer) was simultaneously heart-wrenching, nerve-wracking, confusing and downright scary.
Here's how it goes:
You have unusual symptoms.
You wait.
You decide to call your doctor for an appointment.
You wait for the appointment.
You see the doctor, who schedules tests.
You wait to take the tests.
You wait for the test results.
The tests are inconclusive and more tests are required, but before scheduling and taking the tests, insurance approval is required.
You wait for approval.
You wait for the office to schedule the test.
You take the test.
You wait for the test results.
You are referred to a specialist, but she can't see you for a month.
You wait again (and again and again).
Get it?
I wish I had been told (by anyone!) "Brace yourself, Hollye, because this waiting period is insanely and obscenely hard, hard, hard."
Waiting for a diagnosis is extraordinarily difficult because it brings up an array of feelings that are hard to hold: anxiety, fear, sadness, frustration, impatience, and powerless, to name a few.

Does it help to tell someone who is waiting for a diagnosis that these feelings are normal? Perhaps. A little bit. But then, naturally and automatically, our parasympathetic nervous system (fight or flight) takes right back over. Our primitive brain responds by desperately trying to find a safe way out of the situation, even though there isn't enough data to make a decision yet.
And here's the other thing... You know how time goes so quickly? How it's already July and we don't know where the year has gone? Well, when you're waiting for a diagnosis, time literally stops. It does. Not. Move.
While I was waiting for this news, I did a few things that helped (a little bit, anyway):
  1. By resigning myself to the idea that I was waiting for a real cancer diagnosis, I rationalized that I could no longer be shocked by hearing the actual cancer diagnosis. My anxiety didn't disappear, but it considerably dissipated.
  2. I gave myself 30 seconds of calm, then 30 seconds of despair or whatever I was feeling. Over time, I had longer feelings of calm and resolution.
  3. I took my 4-year-old daughter to the park and played. There is nothing like playing with a child to keep you centered and present.
  4. I went for a long, hard run because physical exertion frees my mind.
  5. I told two people. That's it. I didn't want to have to tell people without any explanation.
I vividly remember the exact moment when I received the FBC diagnosis. It feels like it happened not just yesterday, but 15 minutes ago. It's one of those events in your life that is forever embedded in your memory. I remember the doctor, the room, the smells, the temperature. All of it.
Now, here's the crazy part: There was a strange relief when I heard the official diagnosis. Yes, I said relief. That's how BAD the waiting was for me!
The best thing that YOU as a friend can do is be present for the person who is waiting. Don't make suggestions about what a person "should" do. That doesn't help. Just be there. Presence is the best present (Silver Lining).
To read more about Hollye's holistic and humorous journey over, around, above and below breast cancer, please visit her blog, The Silver Pen (www.thesilverpen.com). You may email her at hollye@TheSilverPen or follow her on Twitter @hollyejacobs.

Genetic Gamble New Approaches to Fighting Cancer


A Life-Death Predictor Adds to a Cancer’s Strain

Dilip Vishwanat for The New York Times
Cassandra Caton watched Bruce Cook work on a mold for her prosthetic eye at Bruce Cook Prosthetics in January.
In May 2011, Cassandra Caton, an 18-year-old with honey-colored hair and the soft features of a child, suddenly went blind in her right eye. Five months later, an ophthalmologist noticed something disturbing. A large growth in the back of her eye had ripped her retina, destroying her vision.
Dilip Vishwanat for The New York Times
Cassandra Caton’s right eye was marked with a “yes”  before it was surgically removed in December at Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis.

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
He sent her to Washington Universityin St. Louis, a three-hour drive from her sparsely furnished apartment in the working-class town of Sedalia, Mo.
And there, Ms. Caton, mother of a 2-year-old daughter, wife of a chicken factory worker, got almost incomprehensibly bad news. The growth was cancer, amelanoma, and it was so huge it filled her eyeball.
“Am I going to die?” Ms. Caton asked. “Is my baby going to have a mommy in five years?”
It is a question that plagues cancer patients. Doctors try to give survival odds based on a tumor’s appearance and size, but often that is just an educated guess.
But Ms. Caton had a new option, something that became possible only in this new genetic age. She could have a genetic test of her tumor that could reveal her prognosis with uncanny precision. The test identifies one of two gene patterns in eye melanomas. Almost everyone in Class 1 — roughly half of patients — is cured when the tumor is removed. As for those in Class 2, 70 to 80 percent will die within five years. Their cancers will re-emerge as growths in the liver. For them, there is no cure and no way to slow the disease.
No test has ever been so accurate in predicting cancer outcomes, researchers said.
The data from studies of the test are “unbelievably impressive,” said Dr. Michael Birrer, anovarian cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital. “I would die to have something like that in ovarian cancer.”
While for now the ocular melanoma test is in a class by itself, cancer researchers say it is a taste of what may be coming as they continue to investigate the genes of cancer cells. Similar tests, not always as definitive but nonetheless able to give prognostic information, are under development or starting to be used for other cancers, like cancers of the blood.
Having a prognosis allows people to plan their lives, but most do not want to know if they have a gene for an incurable, fatal illness, like Huntington’s disease or early onsetAlzheimer’s.
The eye test raises a similar choice, with an added twist. This is not a test offered to healthy people, but to patients who have just gotten the news that they have cancer. The results will either give them reassurance that they will survive the cancer — or near certainty that they will die from it.
Can patients in the throes of getting this terrifying news really make an informed choice about whether they want the test? Are they able to understand at such a fraught time that, for now at least, there is nothing that can save them if they get the bad prognosis?
Some doctors do not offer the test, reasoning that there is little to be gained.
But other doctors, including J. William Harbour of Washington University, who developed the test (but does not profit from its use), encourage patients to have it. And probably because of the way he describes it, Dr. Harbour says his patients almost always want it.
Ms. Caton was no exception. Without the test, doctors would have had to guess her outcome based on the size of her tumor. And the conventional wisdom is that people with growths as large as hers have a slim chance of surviving. But perhaps, her doctors hoped, the genetic test would come up with a different answer.
Heralding the Future
Dr. Harbour, a genial and burly man with salt-and-pepper hair, has a way about him that relaxes patients, makes them feel everything will be O.K.
“I give them as much information as I think they can handle,” Dr. Harbour says.
And he’s an optimist. The ocular melanoma test is just the beginning, he believes, of a new understanding of that cancer — and perhaps other cancers as well — and why they spread.
About 2,000 people a year, or about 5 percent of melanoma patients, have ocular melanoma, a tumor of the dark brown melanocytes that form a sheet much like a photographer’s backdrop behind the retina. Those with very large tumors are most likely to have a bad prognosis, but patients with small tumors also can have the deadly type.
Often there are no symptoms; the tumor may be discovered by an ophthalmologist during a routine exam. Other patients, though, lose vision or see flashing lights or a sea of floaters in an eye, all signs of damage to the retina as the tumor encroaches.
Most get radiation, a highly radioactive disc placed on the surface of the eye that destroys the tumor in a few days and then is taken out. But those with huge tumors, like Ms. Caton, must have their eye removed.
Ocular melanoma specialists had long noticed that some patients did well and the rest did not, but Dr. Harbour wanted to know why.
Then he saw an opportunity. Ever since he came to Washington University in 1996, Dr. Harbour had been storing bits of tumors from ocular melanoma patients and keeping track of what happened to the patients. Working with his colleagues at the genome center, Dr. Harbour looked for genetic differences in tumors that spread and those that did not.

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
The genes themselves were no different. But a group of several hundred genes that looked the same in cells from patients in Class 1 and Class 2 were acting differently in the patients who did poorly. The genes were churning out many more proteins in the cells of patients in Class 2. Dr. Harbour found that he could look at the activity of 12 of those genes and predict how well a patient would do.
After a rigorous study to confirm that the test worked, the university licensed it to a small company, Castle Biosciences. They bill more than $6,000, with the price depending on the quality of the sample. But the company has programs to make sure that the poor or uninsured can receive the test, said Derek Maetzold, the company’s president and chief executive.
Some cancer specialists, though, ask what is to be gained by using the test.
When it comes to dividing patients into two prognostic groups, “the data are really astonishing,” said Dr. Keith Flaherty, a melanoma researcher at Massachusetts General. Yet, he added, “There is no treatment yet that will alter the natural history of the disease.”
“Why would you want that information when we don’t have anything we can do for you?” Dr. Flaherty asked. “That is the fundamental question that has caused people to pause.”
For the majority treated with radiation, having the test requires a biopsy of the tumor before treatment. After going through that, those in Class 2 have no real options other than to wait for the inevitable.
Nothing has been shown to prolong the lives of Class 2 patients, said Dr. Evangelos S. Gragoudas, an ocular oncologist at Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary. Not more frequent monitoring of the liver, not more aggressive or earlier chemotherapy. Nothing.
Dr. Gragoudas tells patients that the ocular melanoma test is available. Then, he said, “I tell them that I do not do it at the present time. But if you want it, there are people who will do it.”
“I had only one patient tell me, ‘I want to know,’ ” Dr. Gragoudas said.
Dr. Harbour has a different view, and conveys it to his patients. He tells them that if they are Class 2 he will monitor them closely, doing liver scans every six months and blood tests in between, and will treat metastases with chemotherapy, delivered to the site of the cancer’s spread, as they occur.
Patients sometimes think that means they can be cured, Dr. Harbour confesses, adding that he makes a point of repeating the information about what the test results mean on several different visits to be sure it sinks in.
Dr. Harbour says he believes that frequent monitoring and prompt treatment of the cancer may be extending some patients’ lives, although that has not been rigorously established. Dr. Gragoudas says a study he did found that early treatment made no difference.
But Dr. Harbour says his approach means patients have a different sort of death. Before the gene test was developed, patients would not know their cancer had spread until they were at the end stages of their disease. Then they would suddenly shed weight, lose their appetite, fall ill and their skin would turn yellow from liver failure. Within a few months they would be dead.
Now, by finding the cancer as soon as it spreads to the liver, it often can be controlled, at least for a while. The cancer then tends to spread to the lung or bones, where it can also be controlled. Death still tends to be from cancer in the liver, but even if it occurs at the same time, it may be less painful, Dr. Harbour says.
“Would you want a horrible death that is relatively short,” he asks, “or a death that is slower?”
Dr. Harbour thinks there may be ways to impede the cancer’s progress in Class 2 disease by blocking a gene, BAP 1, that seems to be driving the cancer’s spread. That is his hope for clinical trials with one of two treatments: a class of drugs known as histone deacetylase inhibitors, which were developed to fight cancer and are being tested against a cancer of white blood cells, or valproic acid, an old drug used to treat epilepsy that subsequently was found to be a histone deacetylase inhibitor.
But then again, if Class 2 patients, most of whom are doomed anyway, find out about valproic acid, which is cheap and easily available, would they really wait for a clinical trial, taking a chance they could be randomly assigned to take a placebo? Yet without a rigorous study, it will be impossible to know if the drug helps Class 2 patients.

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
‘Praying for a Miracle’
Cassie Caton and an older man came in for their biopsy and treatment on a frigid morning in early December. Both would have to have their eyes removed — their tumors were too large for radiation.
First was Joe Ritter, age 70.
“We are praying for a miracle,” his wife, Judy, said that morning, as Mr. Ritter sat silently in his bed, waiting to be wheeled into the operating room.
At 11:30 that morning, Ms. Caton’s surgery began. Dr. Harbour looked at her dilated eye. There, visible behind her blue pupil, was a brown halo, the melanoma.
He began to work, carefully and efficiently, preserving and pinning back the muscles that control her eye’s movement.
About an hour into the surgery, Dr. Harbour removed Ms. Caton’s eyeball, cutting the optic nerve with scissors. Her eye looked like a white marble with a blue pupil on top and a little white wicklike stalk on the end, the stub of the optic nerve. He took the eyeball to a metal table and cut it open. It was filled with what looked like slices of brown olives, the melanoma. A fluid squirted out, the vitreous. Normally it would be clear and jellylike. But cancer had made it liquid and the color of weak tea.
Some of that cancer tissue would go to Castle Biosciences for analysis. The rest would be stored for future research.
Then Dr. Harbour covered a plastic ball about the size of Ms. Caton’s eyeball with the outer layer from a cadaver’s eyeball, and put it into her eye socket so the ball would move like her eye. Finally, he carefully sewed the controlling muscles in place. In about six weeks, an artist would paint a thick contact lens to match Ms. Caton’s remaining eye, giving her a prosthesis that would be all but indistinguishable from her healthy eye.
Mr. Ritter would also end up with a prosthetic eye that would look and move just like his healthy one.
Both Ms. Caton and Mr. Ritter would return in about a month to find out if they were Class 1 or Class 2.
Awaiting the Verdict
On Jan. 9, they arrived to hear their verdicts. Mr. Ritter went first, bringing his wife with him into the small windowless room.
After a few pleasantries, Dr. Harbour delivered the news.
“Based on what we found from your biopsy result, it was Class 2,” he said.
Mrs. Ritter looked stricken, her eyes filled with tears. She crossed the room and hugged her husband. Mr. Ritter grinned nervously while Dr. Harbour explained how he would like to monitor him. And, he said, he planned to start some clinical trials to see if he could slow the cancer in Class 2 patients. Perhaps Mr. Ritter could join one.
Then Dr. Harbour stepped out of the room, allowing the Ritters to compose themselves.
Mr. Ritter reflected on how the news about his eye had steadily worsened.
“I started out thinking it was a cold in my eye,” he said. “Then I thought it was a cataract. Then they told me it was a torn retina. That turned into a tumor. Now it’s a Class 2.”
Mrs. Ritter tried to be positive.
“Maybe we caught it in time,” she said. “We’ve got a lot of prayers coming our way.”
Ms. Caton and her stepfather came in next. He had driven three hours from his home in Kansas City and picked her up in Sedalia. The two had arrived in St. Louis the night before.
She had been too nervous to sleep.
With few preliminaries, Dr. Harbour told her what the test showed.
“Your test result,” he said, “was very good.” Her tumor was not only Class 1 but it was a subset of Class 1 that had an even better prognosis than Class 1 in general. It was Class 1a.
“That is very, very good news,” Dr. Harbour said.
“In the old days, the size of a tumor was the best indicator,” he told Ms. Caton. “People would have told you, you were at very high risk,” he said. “Your tumor was almost an inch in its largest dimension. Pathologists’ eyes widened when they saw it. But molecular testing trumps all of that.”
“If you did not have this test you would have walked away being told you have a bad prognosis when you actually have a good prognosis,” he added.
Ms. Caton could not stop smiling. Then, still grinning, the 18-year-old asked her next question.
“When can I wear eye makeup again?”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: July 12, 2012
An article on Tuesday about a genetic test that very accurately predicts the outcome of patients with ocular melanoma misspelled the name of a class of drugs that are being tested against a cancer of white blood cells and perhaps could be used to slow the spread of ocular melanoma. The drugs are histone deacetylase inhibitors, not histone deacylase inhibitors. The article also left the incorrect impression that valproic acid is unrelated to that class. Valproic acid, an older drug used to treat epilepsy and other disorders, subsequently was found to be a histone deacetylase inhibitor.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: July 9, 2012
An earlier version of this article misstated the given name of an ovarian cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital who praised the accuracy of a genetic test to determine the course of ocular melanoma. He is Dr. Michael Birrer, not Matthew. An earlier version also misstated the five-year mortality rate from Class 2 eye melanomas. It is 70 to 80 percent.

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Cancer treatment that blocks cellular “protein factories” set to begin clinical trials

01:13 July 10, 2012
A new cancer treatment targeting cellular 'protein factories' is set to begin clinical tri...
A new cancer treatment targeting cellular 'protein factories' is set to begin clinical trials (Image: Shutterstock)

Researchers at Melbourne’s Peter MacCallum (Peter Mac) Cancer Centre are set to begin clinical trials of a cancer treatment they say represents a major shift in molecular approaches to treating the disease. The treatment, which has proven successful in the lab against lymphoma and leukemia cells, targets the production of proteins within the heart of cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells relatively unaffected.
Ribosomes are a complex of molecules found within all living cells – including cancerous and healthy cells – that are responsible for the formation of proteins from individual amino acids. Associate Professor Ross Hannan, Co-Head of the Oncogenic Signalling and Growth Control Program at Peter Mac, says that the production of ribosomes, known as ribosome biogenesis, which occurs in both the cell cytoplasm and cell nucleus, was previously assumed to be a “housekeeping” operation that could not be targeted by anti-cancer drugs.
But Hannan, who has spent most of his research career investigating ribosome biogenesis and its importance to the biology of cancer cells, suspected otherwise.
“It was an unproven theory for many years, but I was confident we were on the right track, the key signs were there: when ribosome biogenesis is dysregulated, proteins are overproduced, creating rampant cell growth, a hallmark of cancer; and abnormalities of the nucleolus, the site of ribosome biogenesis, have been used as an indicator of cancer for over 100 years.”
The research team confirmed Hanna’s suspicions, finding that blocking this routine cellular process within cancer cells can selectively kill them, while leaving healthy cells unaffected.
“We’ve demonstrated that cancer cells are far more dependent on their ability to make ribosomes than normal cells, and therefore, much more vulnerable if these ‘protein factories’ come under attack,” said Hannan.
“When we blocked the enzyme responsible for producing the major ribosomal components in pre-clinical laboratory models, it set off a chain of events that killed lymphoma and leukaemia cells, but left normal, healthy cells unaffected,” added Professor Grant McArthur, Co-Head of the Cancer Therapeutics Program, who says these findings suggest that a new class of therapies that selectively inhibit ribosome formation and block protein formation could one day offer effective treatment of human cancers.
Working with pharmaceutical company, Cylene Pharmaceuticals, the researchers have now developed a compound, called CX-5461, that will allow them to test their research in patients. The first-in-human clinical trials to establish the safety profile of this approach will commence in patients with blood cancers at Peter Mac later this year.
“Advanced blood cancers are very difficult to treat and to have a new targeted weapon to test at our disposal is incredibly important and, we hope, another important advance in targeted cancer therapy,” said Dr Simon Harrison, Consultant Haematologist at Peter Mac and Principal Investigator of the upcoming phase 1 trial. “To offer this new trial to Victorians with incurable cancers of the blood system is fantastic and knowing it has the potential to one day help patients across the globe is an incredibly exciting development.”
The team's research appears in the journal Cancer Cell.

Ask The Experts: Legal and Career Advice Teleconference July 2012


A teleconference series presented by Cancer and Careers, your resource for balancing work and cancer.
  • How do I deal with the gap on my resume from taking time off for treatment?
  • Can I use the Family and Medical Leave Act for my weekly chemo appointments?
  • What are my insurance options if I'm unemployed?
Join us on one (or all!) of our teleconferences where you can ask any and all questions you may have for a career coach or legal expert.
Speakers
Career Coach: Julie Jansen, Executive and Career Coach and Author
Legal Expert: Joanna L. Morales, Esq., Cancer Rights Attorney; Principal, North Star Alliances
Thursday July 19th – 1:00pm ET (10:00am PT) Register here
Questions? Email us at cancerandcareers@cew.org or call 646-929-8032.

Location

Teleconference

Date

07/19/2012


Monday, 09 July 2012 09:17

Looking for a shortcut to new boobs? Breast cancer's not it.

Written by  Diane Mapes
I was talking to a breast cancer buddy the other day -- one of the lucky ones who found her cancer at Stage 0 and got away with a minor lumpectomy -- and was amazed and horrified at something she told me.
Diane MapesApparently, while she was still learning about the staging of her disease, a handful of her friends told her they thought breast cancer was a great opportunity to improve her boobs (my friend's always been small-breasted). As in, "You should totally do a double mastectomy and then get the boobs of your dreams."  
As someone who's not only had a double mastectomy but is also currently researching reconstruction, I'd like to offer a little insight into this idea that breast cancer is a convenient way to "upgrade" your girls.
Mastectomies suck. Obviously, finding out that you have to have your breasts taken from you is horrific. I had two tumors in each of my girls, spaced far enough apart that lumpectomy wasn't an option. Both of my boobs had to go (although I was able to keep my nipples). While I had a great surgeon, I now have scars on the outside of each "breast-ette." I also have adhesions, areas where the skin is firmly stuck to the chest wall as well as knots of scar tissue that can be painful (it can also limit movement in some women). My chest wall hurts most days, probably from the heavy scraping it experienced during surgery. And speaking of surgery, after mine I came home with plastic tubing under my skin that wrapped around my breast area and drained bloody fluid into two plastic "hand grenades" that I had to empty out -- and measure -- twice a day for about three weeks. Not a good time. Also not fun, having to strap on a "sandbag" bra that chafes against my chest and armpits every day. Or wearing all of my V-neck shirts backwards because I don't want people (particularly men - I'm single) to see my prominent ribs and realize there's something funky going on with my front. Or looking in the mirror as I'm washing my hands or putting on makeup and seeing a gnarled and knotted chest looking back. Some women skip the fake boobs and rock their flat chests and I say more power to them. But for those who think breast cancer is a convenient way to get those double Ds they've always wanted, just remember that you have to live with nothing but scars and stares (imaginary and otherwise) for awhile first. Sometimes a very long while.
Kiss sensation goodbye. I did my research before surgery so I knew that loss of feeling was part of the process, but apparently not all women are aware of the fact that along with your fatty breast tissue -- and whatever cancer -- the surgeon removes all of your nerves during mastectomy. Which means you're left with a Dead Zone where your breasts used to be. I could probably put a cigarette out on my skin and not feel it, at least not until the ember made its way through to my chest wall. I've certainly looked down to find cat scratches that I have no memory of. This lack of feeling has been one of the worst thing I've had to adjust to post-surgery. I'm a sexual person -- there I've said it -- and my girls have always been two very important players on the team. Now those players are permanently on the disabled list. A man could stroke my breasts -- even stroke my nipples -- all day long and the only thing I would feel is frustration. That delightful tingle I used to feel -- the same thing most of us experience when someone nuzzles our neck -- is gone, most likely forever. Some women claim they get some feeling back as their nerve endings regenerate, but I haven't experienced anything like that. Many women never do.
Reconstruction isn't immediate. While some women can get their breasts reconstructed at the time of surgery (usually women who opt for prophylactic mastectomies due to a genetic predisposition for breast cancer), others have to wait. I lobbied hard to have immediate reconstruction, using tissue expanders (or TEs) which would be placed behind my chest wall, filled with saline over the course a few weeks and then swapped out for implants. But thanks to the nature and number of my tumors, I had to wait for the pathology report. And that report determined that in addition to the double mastectomy, I needed further treatment. At this point in the process, I've been without boobs for a year and a quarter. Why the long delay? First I had to have chemo and you can't really deal with that and surgery at the same time (it's too much for your body to handle, plus chemo compromises your immune system so you can't heal). Then I had to have radiation, something else that doesn't mix well with reconstructive surgery, since radiation messes with the structure of your skin. Even women who do opt for immediate reconstruction sometimes have to stop the whole process -- or have their TEs removed -- when their doctors discover they need additional treatment. Breast reconstruction isn't cosmetic surgery. It's also not easy or painless or even an option for every woman who gets this lousy disease. If you have a friend who's been diagnosed with breast cancer, spend a few minutes doing some research on treatment and reconstruction options before you start throwing out silver linings -- or supersized lingerie -- that may not be in the cards for them.
Shit happens. When I first started treatment, I was told I'd have to wait at least six months after radiation before I could even start thinking about getting new girls. Since then, I've been told that I won't be able to have the "easy" TE/implant type of reconstruction on my irradiated left side since my skin can no longer stretch enough to accommodate either a tissue expander or an implant. This means I'll probably have to have a more complicated "flap" procedure on that side, a reconstruction technique where they nip a bit of muscle and flesh from one part of your body (like your stomach or your back) and tuck it into your breast in order to accommodate an implant (or a chunk of tissue). These are major surgeries that take major recovery time (we're talking weeks). And instead of just having scars on your breasts, you're left with scars on other parts of your bodies, large scars that can look like somebody tried to saw you in half. As a BC buddy who had a stomach flap procedure on her irradiated breast and a TE/implant done on the other one told me, "I've got boobs now, but my body looks like a patchwork quilt." But having a body that's crisscrossed with surgery and reconstruction scars is just the start. Some women get post-surgery infections or hematomas; others have to have their implants removed because of capsular contraction, a process where the body's immune response creates a hard shell around the implant which is not only painful but can make those "bigger, better boobs" end up looking like something out of a bad Playboy cartoon. And the list of complications goes on (some of my BC buddies have even had problems from the general anesthesia used during reconstruction).
I understand trying to put a positive spin on breast cancer. I'm the queen of "fake it 'til you make it." What I don't understand are women (and men) who think breast reconstruction and breast augmentation are somehow synonymous. Or think that "milking" breast cancer for all it's worth, i.e., using a diagnosis -- or a cancer scare -- to lop off those old girls and get boobs that are bigger or perkier or just bright, shiny and new is smart and acceptable and something that should be encouraged.
I'm not saying that losing your breasts is the end of the world. Double mastectomies are survivable; ditto for reconstruction. But I wouldn't wish this surgery on my worst enemy. And I certainly wouldn't wish it on a good friend.
# # #
Seattle journalist and author Diane Mapes was diagnosed with breast cancer in February 2011, at age 52, and has been writing about it ever since -- for msnbc.com as well as on her blog,www.doublewhammied.com. You can follow her @double_whammied.