Nov 18, 2011 - 6:48 pm
Have been following the posts about that double-edged sword, Tamoxifen. Sure, it may delay recurrence of certain breast cancers, perhaps even prevent recurrences, but it's also associated with higher than usual risk not merely of uterine cancer, but of the most aggressive of them, including carcinosarcoma (MMMT) and papillary serous. Given that statistical correlation, prophylactic hysterectomy should be an option COVERED BY INSURANCE for those who have been advised to take this drug for more than a year or two.
Likewise, ladies, do any of you feel pause about the irony that although pelvic radiation is said to delay recurrence of our uterine cancers, it is also shown in many studies to CAUSE uterine cancer? (Nearly thirty percent of those diagnosed with carcinosarcoma of the uterus had received some kind of pelvic radiation years prior.) Does this correlation make any of us nervous? Or are we demanding the stats that show what happens in our given kind of cancer with NO radiation (perhaps just chemo) versus 25-30 pelvic radiation treatments?
Sorry to call attention to such ominous inversions (alleged cures versus causes of further disease), but do they not suggest we need to keep demanding more research--and confronting our oncs with harder questions?