ASTRO: Brain Metastases Common in Ovarian Cancer
Comments
-
About Steve Jobs
I found the reports that his death was listed as being heart failure and not cancer to be very disconcerting in regards to how much cancer there actually is in the US and world wide if they report deaths using similar criterium.
How many cancer deaths, what percentage are recorded, in fact, as cancer deaths and not something else, like heart failure, toxic shock, infection, liver failure or kidney failure, even though the root cause was indeed cancer.0 -
NOT heart failurecalifornia_artist said:About Steve Jobs
I found the reports that his death was listed as being heart failure and not cancer to be very disconcerting in regards to how much cancer there actually is in the US and world wide if they report deaths using similar criterium.
How many cancer deaths, what percentage are recorded, in fact, as cancer deaths and not something else, like heart failure, toxic shock, infection, liver failure or kidney failure, even though the root cause was indeed cancer.
"According to Steve Jobs' death certificate, issued Monday by the Santa Clara County Public Health Department, respiratory arrest brought on by a "metastatic pancreas neuroendocrine tumor" was the official cause of the Apple co-founder's death on October 5."
As my grandfather once said, as he read the "irish sports page"/obituaries...."we all die from lack of breath". As did Jobs. But his cause was not heart failure. I never saw that in any of the news articles I read.0 -
re jobs
I watch mostly msnbc which reported-Report: Steve Jobs cause of death was respiratory arrest msnbc.com
I transferred repiratory arrest to cardiac arrest, but the point was that in that first day, and I paid little attention after that, was that they reported that is was something other than cancer. Very glad to see that it has been updated for correctness and I do hope that it is counted as a death due to cancer.0 -
OK Claudiacalifornia_artist said:soromer, you are at the point that you simply need information.
Certainly no one would think you are stupid and I don't feel you should feel anything but woefully uninformed due to no fault of your own.
Which is exactly the point of all this. Yes it is both a blessing and seemingly a curse, but the fact that you have things to think about is at least being informed. One of the things that bothered me the most was that I feel and it might be true of most here, that the totality of informed consent is lacking. There is a basic glossing over the whole truth. Warnings of some things, but certainly not most. That's why when I asked what kind of a success recored my gyno/onc had using the treatments he recommended and he was reply was that he didn't keep records, I was, to say the very least incredulous. What??? No records?? and he was in one of those cancer community hospitals, I can't think of the name off hand. If he didn't know how well it worked, why would he continue to do it without a firm concept of it effectiveness???
Anyway, I don't really know where you are in your knowledge curve so here are some very basic things one should know about cancer:
These are some of the tings that cancer just adores you for supplying it:
sugar/carbs of any kind--i.e. brown rice is a wonderful food but not for a stage four cancer patient.
Milk helps cancer
Cancer needs iron, copper
It prefers an anerobic environment
a low body temp
Cancer hates these things:
potassium
Anything alkaline-check acid alkaline charts as it's the ash the body makes which counts. Lemon is highly ALKALINE FORMING
oxygen- so exercise, but not too strenuously as it also likes lactic acid/Practice deep breathing throughout the day.
heat-check your basic temperature
It has a problem with the trio of turmeric/pepper/olive oil taken together
Green tea, brewed for thirty minutes, and then drunk within the hour, a must as the goodness gets lost after that-- and then no sugar or milk, but lemon ups its effectiveness.
If you want to keep the bad estrogen under control-cabbage cooked for just a minute or two or steamed, changes the bad estrogen into a more innocuous form. Also, it is important to keep everything going out of your body as quickly as possible as if estrogen does not get expelled it is reabsorbed and changed into the bad cancer causing form of estrogen by the liver.
Anyone else want to fill in what I've left out for the basics.
Oh, there is a list of antiangeogenetic foods in the dietary thread.
If you are really a stage four, which my understanding was that one became when the cancer left the abdominal cavity, so lung mets, would be pretty bad. In which case I would, were it me, start growing wheatgrass. There is a ton of info on the net re wheatgrass, which is alkaline as well as a source of chlorophyl which is akin to the red blood cell.
If you send me an csn email I will give you my email address.
There are quite a few of us out here doing things in addition to chemo and radiation. Rosey, Maggie, Culka, although she may not feel like being active right now, her posts are great, Tethys, ever I think. You might start a post asking for help with the basics, standard alternative complementary, whatever.
In your benefit, it seems you have some of the most important traits to getting through this, curiosity and an open mind. Believe if you try hard enough and never give up you will make it, and I believe you will. I would not eat any kind of animal or fish until I had some sign that my cancer was no longer growing.
This is what it says at the bottom of this page and is why I feel comfortable saying what I have.
The content on this site is for informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Do not use this information to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease without consulting with a qualified healthcare provider. Please consult your healthcare provider with any questions or concerns you may have regarding your condition. Use of this online service is subject to the disclaimer and the terms and conditions.
The very, very best of good wishes for you,
Claudia
Wait-----Stress, cancer likes stress because when your body and mind are stressed all your immune activity slows and goes to dealing with the stress. In the beginning, when I was first diagnosed, if someone's behavior was stressful to me, I would say that because of the cancer, I absolutely could not tolerate any stress and unfortunatly, they would have to go change the conversation or go home.You have not only the right to, but have an obligation to protect yourself. I'll write you a note if you would like.
Hugs
never mind0 -
Ms.Claudia~california_artist said:About a vegetrarian diet.
While eliminating meat from your diet once diagnosed with cancer is a very good idea, that step alone is not the whole story. If your reasons are not wholly because you feel eating animals is not right and you are doing it strictly because of the highly acidic nature of the meat itself, you are on the right track.
Becoming a vegetarian can be beneficial. However, even in the vegetarian world, there still exist acidic and alkaline foods. Grains, and cheeses are acidic. Sodas, artificial sweeteners, sugars, white flour, processed cereals, coffee, alcohol are highly, highly acidic. So one can be a vegetarian or vegan and still have a diet that supports cancer growth and bone loss. Even black tea is somewhat acidic. Green tea fights cancer, especially when taken only with lemon and steeped for thirty minutes.
It is the totality of your actions that set the stage for your future health. Even whether or not your life in general causes you stress is relevant. A body under stress puts immune function on hold to fight what it considers a more pressing matter, as the immediate threat of danger trumps all else, survival is the key.
A person going out to dinner and having a drink, a steak, and dessert, is not doing themselves any favors, except their stress level would be pretty low, so there's that. A person going to a fast food restaurant and having the typical burger, diet soda and fries, that person is living in the worst of all worlds, as the acidic content, not to mention the fat and salt, are not their friends, nor is the atmosphere, unless you like that sort of thing. Their cancer is living it up, and busily dividing like nobody's business.
Knowing and focusing on those foods that are anti angiogenesis(angiogenesis is the establishment of a new blood supply to a growing turmor, without this new blood supply, your cancer cannot grow large enough to do you any damage) is extremely beneficial. Keeping a tumor from establishing a new blood supply is one of, if not the key goal if the objective is to survive, even with cancer.
A vegetarian or a person eating very, very little meat, while eating a preponderance of rice, beans, and cheese with a little ice cream and coffee on the side, as I had been when I got cancer, is also not doing themselves any favors. On the other hand if that same person puts the balance of their diet into the vegetable side of the vegetarian diet, with beans, rice and cheese on the side, that would be entirely different and a step in the right direction.
If I had known then what I know now, I seriously doubt I would find myself in this situation.
I've really stepped into side of being a vegetarian...lots of those organic vegies and fruits, plus adding some legumes, black beans, nuts, 4 servings per day of green tea, very little sugar, avoid anything processed, etc. etc. Yes I do have my fresh garlic, ginger, grains, and mix of turmeric/black pepper/olive oil. Now my question, grains aren't good...right? So...what do you eat or do you eat any grains? I'm a huge person on my steel oats every morning with cinnamon and ginger, and also add in some grain bread and almond butter (home-made) for lunch.
Luckily I was never ever, in my entire life, much of a meat eater, so when cancer entered my life, it was so easy to cut it ALL OUT..easy!!! Do try to add in the "mercury" free fishes....and do you eat fish? Looking for some guidance?
How about wheat pasta? Any carbs in your diet? I know brown rice isn't tops on our lists so I've switched to quinoa.
Stress? Wow is that a biggie on my list. I quite my corp job which probably pushed me over the edge into side of cancer diagnosis...never will know but that's my gut feeling. Today I do yoga each morning for up to 30 minutes, walk (very fast) outside for 1 hour and/or get to gym for my equipment workouts...we all know the weight-bearing exercises are so very important for our bone density. Mine has actually gotten better since my first DEXA scan 2 years prior....must be doing this right.
Extra weight on our bodies isn't good, and cancer has less chance of survival in aerobic environment...so get out and huff-and-puff during the exercising. Actually, is soothing for the mind as well.
Any suggestions ladies?
Hugs
Jan0 -
That can't be right...JoAnnDK said:taxol dosing
"Anyone have any thoughts on why taxol is not given at a reduced rate with shorter intervals in between?"
=========================================
Perhaps they are trying to kill all of us off.
You have asked this question several times and I thought someone should finally answer you.
Remember THEY need to keep us alive or who would THEY sell their drugs too. ;o)
Cindy0 -
Jazzy doo,
I think when I posted that I tried to stress, that it isn't none, it's just a preponderance of veggies with a lesser amount of beans, grains, etc. Oats are the best at stopping cancer. In regards to bone strength, meat is a real bone depleter.
Even sugar, though a friend to cancer, can come in conjunction with some powerful cancer fighters. Organic concord grapes first things after a night's sleep can lure cancer into greedily taking them in and the ellegic sp? knocks the bejessis out of the cancer. A similar approach to coaxing cancer cells to take up the radioactive ladden sugar of a PET scan, except with a powerful punch.
So, sounds to me like you are doing a bang up job of it all. I hope I didn't give the impression of no beans and such. I'll have to reread see if it needs a tweeking.
What advice or things are you doing that you might feel are helpful, that you would like to share? Would appreciate your input.
I have read that the recommendation after a disease diagnosis, is a balance of 80% alkaline to 20% acidic, thus allowing for things one enjoys in moderation. Don't think I'd put artificial sweeteners there anywhere, but within reason. Were I stage four anything, I would most likely, a. cry, and b.go closer to 90-95% alkaline for a short time. You know, b. would most likely also be cry for a while longer, get it all out and then the old b. would become the new c..0 -
Low Dose ProtocolJoAnnDK said:taxol dosing
"Anyone have any thoughts on why taxol is not given at a reduced rate with shorter intervals in between?"
=========================================
Perhaps they are trying to kill all of us off.
You have asked this question several times and I thought someone should finally answer you.
JoAnnDK
Good point!
The dose-dense protocol gives the drug more often, but not at a "lower" dose. Dose-dense chemotherapy shortens the treatment cycle while maintaining roughly the same chemotherapy dosage as conventional chemotherapy (the process reduction of time gap between two regular doses).
Dose-dense treatment is usually given with breaks of several weeks between doses to let the body try to recover. However, the anti-angiogenic effects of dose-dense therapy is masked and marginalized by administering it this way.
Low-dose chemotherapy not only shortens the treatment cycle but "lowers" the dosage of treatment a patient can withstand during shorten administration of "any" conventional drugs.
The main targets of dose-dense chemotherapy are proliferating tumor cells. The main targets of low-dose chemotherapy are the endothelial cells of the growing vasculature of a tumor. In other words (any) chemotherapeutics can be used as anti-angiogenic agents.
Blood vessel cells are less likely than tumor cells to become resistant to chemotherapy, so if cancer cells become drug resistant, these drugs should still be able to shrink tumors by destroying their blood supply.
Since the endothelial cells (involved in angiogenesis) are the first in the tumor to undergo cell death (apoptosis), the more frequent, and lower-dose therapy can have an impressive anti-angiogenic and anti-tumor effects.
Greg0 -
Heart Failurecalifornia_artist said:About Steve Jobs
I found the reports that his death was listed as being heart failure and not cancer to be very disconcerting in regards to how much cancer there actually is in the US and world wide if they report deaths using similar criterium.
How many cancer deaths, what percentage are recorded, in fact, as cancer deaths and not something else, like heart failure, toxic shock, infection, liver failure or kidney failure, even though the root cause was indeed cancer.
California
Cancer treatment can damage the heart and cause deaths from heart failure. This means fewer deaths from cancer. Analysis of the records of 1.2 million cancer cases in the Surveilance, Evaluation and End Results (SEER) database showed that non-cancer deaths accounted for 21 - 37% of all deaths. The authors attributed this effect to the damage caused by cancer treatment.
Greg0 -
Greg, so then my question regarding the low dose moregdpawel said:Low Dose Protocol
JoAnnDK
Good point!
The dose-dense protocol gives the drug more often, but not at a "lower" dose. Dose-dense chemotherapy shortens the treatment cycle while maintaining roughly the same chemotherapy dosage as conventional chemotherapy (the process reduction of time gap between two regular doses).
Dose-dense treatment is usually given with breaks of several weeks between doses to let the body try to recover. However, the anti-angiogenic effects of dose-dense therapy is masked and marginalized by administering it this way.
Low-dose chemotherapy not only shortens the treatment cycle but "lowers" the dosage of treatment a patient can withstand during shorten administration of "any" conventional drugs.
The main targets of dose-dense chemotherapy are proliferating tumor cells. The main targets of low-dose chemotherapy are the endothelial cells of the growing vasculature of a tumor. In other words (any) chemotherapeutics can be used as anti-angiogenic agents.
Blood vessel cells are less likely than tumor cells to become resistant to chemotherapy, so if cancer cells become drug resistant, these drugs should still be able to shrink tumors by destroying their blood supply.
Since the endothelial cells (involved in angiogenesis) are the first in the tumor to undergo cell death (apoptosis), the more frequent, and lower-dose therapy can have an impressive anti-angiogenic and anti-tumor effects.
Greg
frequent therapy would be a very valid option. Which still leaves me with the question of why it isn't employed more often?
Do you think it has anything to do with how it would impact both the patients and the doctors schedules? Is it sort of a logistics problem, or is there no problem other than "we've always done it this way" being the usual three break heavy dosing?
What about a low dose more frequent approach with Taxol and the usual three week break dosing schedule for carbo to attack the proliferating cells.
On another note, What about the study with turmeric. If you don't mind thinking on these a bit, I would aprreciate your input.
I have one more question, isn't there a difference in the burden on a liver from cancer cells killed by chemo and those that die due to apoptosis. I realize that death is the end result in both cases but I had read that cancer cells that make the decision to die leave less toxicity than those killed. Do you know anything about that?
claudia0 -
double post troublegdpawel said:Low Dose Protocol
JoAnnDK
Good point!
The dose-dense protocol gives the drug more often, but not at a "lower" dose. Dose-dense chemotherapy shortens the treatment cycle while maintaining roughly the same chemotherapy dosage as conventional chemotherapy (the process reduction of time gap between two regular doses).
Dose-dense treatment is usually given with breaks of several weeks between doses to let the body try to recover. However, the anti-angiogenic effects of dose-dense therapy is masked and marginalized by administering it this way.
Low-dose chemotherapy not only shortens the treatment cycle but "lowers" the dosage of treatment a patient can withstand during shorten administration of "any" conventional drugs.
The main targets of dose-dense chemotherapy are proliferating tumor cells. The main targets of low-dose chemotherapy are the endothelial cells of the growing vasculature of a tumor. In other words (any) chemotherapeutics can be used as anti-angiogenic agents.
Blood vessel cells are less likely than tumor cells to become resistant to chemotherapy, so if cancer cells become drug resistant, these drugs should still be able to shrink tumors by destroying their blood supply.
Since the endothelial cells (involved in angiogenesis) are the first in the tumor to undergo cell death (apoptosis), the more frequent, and lower-dose therapy can have an impressive anti-angiogenic and anti-tumor effects.
Greg
double post0 -
Claudiacalifornia_artist said:Greg, so then my question regarding the low dose more
frequent therapy would be a very valid option. Which still leaves me with the question of why it isn't employed more often?
Do you think it has anything to do with how it would impact both the patients and the doctors schedules? Is it sort of a logistics problem, or is there no problem other than "we've always done it this way" being the usual three break heavy dosing?
What about a low dose more frequent approach with Taxol and the usual three week break dosing schedule for carbo to attack the proliferating cells.
On another note, What about the study with turmeric. If you don't mind thinking on these a bit, I would aprreciate your input.
I have one more question, isn't there a difference in the burden on a liver from cancer cells killed by chemo and those that die due to apoptosis. I realize that death is the end result in both cases but I had read that cancer cells that make the decision to die leave less toxicity than those killed. Do you know anything about that?
claudia
I think it is a very valid option! It was the protocol my wife had in 1972, pill-dose Chlorambucil (Leukeran), frequently for a stage IV ovarian cancer. By giving chemotherapy more often, at lower doses, it can prevent the regrowth of blood vessels that feed tumors (angiogenesis).
Dose-dense (high-dose) chemotherapy was developed on the theory of cancer cell growth and replication developed in the 1980's known as the Gompertzian growth curve. Because chemotherapy is most effective when cancer cells are dividing the most rapidly, researchers speculated that timing chemotherapy dosage to attack cancer cells at their earliest stage of growth would yield superior results. Bad theory!
Since the endothelial cells (involved in angiogenesis) are the first in the tumor to undergo cell death (apoptosis), the more frequent, lower-dose therapy can have an impressive anti-angiogenic AND anti-tumor effects. Blood vessel cells are less likely than tumor cells to become resistant to chemotherapy and should still be able to shrink tumors by destroying their blood supply.
Your thought about "we've always done it this way" seems to be the best analogy I can think of. It's like making a 180 degree turn of a super-tanker on the high seas. It just doesn't happen on a dime. I believe it is changing, every so slowly.
http://cancerfocus.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3467
There are a number of agents other than Taxol that can do the job, only better.
They were looking for drugs to treat the inflammation seen in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. They tested a compound called a PPAR-gamma modulator. It would never normally have been thought of as a cancer drug, or in fact a drug of any kind. They ran several tests and found the compound killed pretty much every epithelial tumor cell lines they have seen. Epithelial cells line organs such as the colon, and also make up skin.
They reported in the journal International Cancer Research that it killed colon tumors in mice without making the mice sick. The compound worked in much the same way as the taxane drugs, including Taxol, which were originally derived from Pacific yew trees. It targets part of the cell cytoskeleton called tubulin. Tubulin is used to build microtubules, which in turn make up the cell's structure.
Destroying it kills the cell, but cancer cells eventually evolve mechanisms to pump out the drugs that do this, a problem called resistance. Resistance to anti-tubulin therapies, like Taxol, is a huge problem in many cancers. They see this as another way to get to the tubulin. The PPAR-gamma compound does this in a different way from the taxanes, which might mean it could overcome the resistance that tumor cells often develop to chemotherapy.
Most of the drugs like Taxol affect the ability of tubulin to form into microtubules. This doesn't do that -- it causes the tubulin itself to disappear. They do not know why. They planned to do more safety tests in mice. As the compound is already patented, the team will probably have to design something slightly different to be able to patent it as a new drug. BTW. It's called cabozantinib.
http://cancerfocus.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3430
What I know of Tumeric: http://cancerfocus.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2804
There are any number of variables that affect cancer drugs. These include the rate of excretion of the drugs by the kidneys and liver, protein binding and a myriad of other biological factors. Some anticancer drugs are actually pro-drugs: they need to be first activated in the liver before becoming biologically active. Prodrugs are bioreversible derivatives of drug molecules that undergo an enzymatic and/or chemical transformation in vivo (in body) to release the active parent drug, which can then exert the desired pharmacological effect.
Greg0 -
yes, I already knew all of that, Greg. It has been discussed here many times.gdpawel said:Low Dose Protocol
JoAnnDK
Good point!
The dose-dense protocol gives the drug more often, but not at a "lower" dose. Dose-dense chemotherapy shortens the treatment cycle while maintaining roughly the same chemotherapy dosage as conventional chemotherapy (the process reduction of time gap between two regular doses).
Dose-dense treatment is usually given with breaks of several weeks between doses to let the body try to recover. However, the anti-angiogenic effects of dose-dense therapy is masked and marginalized by administering it this way.
Low-dose chemotherapy not only shortens the treatment cycle but "lowers" the dosage of treatment a patient can withstand during shorten administration of "any" conventional drugs.
The main targets of dose-dense chemotherapy are proliferating tumor cells. The main targets of low-dose chemotherapy are the endothelial cells of the growing vasculature of a tumor. In other words (any) chemotherapeutics can be used as anti-angiogenic agents.
Blood vessel cells are less likely than tumor cells to become resistant to chemotherapy, so if cancer cells become drug resistant, these drugs should still be able to shrink tumors by destroying their blood supply.
Since the endothelial cells (involved in angiogenesis) are the first in the tumor to undergo cell death (apoptosis), the more frequent, and lower-dose therapy can have an impressive anti-angiogenic and anti-tumor effects.
Greg0 -
MedPage Todaycalifornia_artist said:Jazzy doo,
I think when I posted that I tried to stress, that it isn't none, it's just a preponderance of veggies with a lesser amount of beans, grains, etc. Oats are the best at stopping cancer. In regards to bone strength, meat is a real bone depleter.
Even sugar, though a friend to cancer, can come in conjunction with some powerful cancer fighters. Organic concord grapes first things after a night's sleep can lure cancer into greedily taking them in and the ellegic sp? knocks the bejessis out of the cancer. A similar approach to coaxing cancer cells to take up the radioactive ladden sugar of a PET scan, except with a powerful punch.
So, sounds to me like you are doing a bang up job of it all. I hope I didn't give the impression of no beans and such. I'll have to reread see if it needs a tweeking.
What advice or things are you doing that you might feel are helpful, that you would like to share? Would appreciate your input.
I have read that the recommendation after a disease diagnosis, is a balance of 80% alkaline to 20% acidic, thus allowing for things one enjoys in moderation. Don't think I'd put artificial sweeteners there anywhere, but within reason. Were I stage four anything, I would most likely, a. cry, and b.go closer to 90-95% alkaline for a short time. You know, b. would most likely also be cry for a while longer, get it all out and then the old b. would become the new c..
Greg, MedPageToday should be ashamed of itself for this headline:
ASTRO: Brain Metastases Common in Ovarian Cancer
.....when this is not true at all and was extrapolated from ONE abstract of an article that has not yet even been peer-reviewed OR published in a medical journal.
This was one study of 78 women ---- conducted over 27 years. How many cases of ovarian cancer were seen at Sloan Kettering in those 27 years? I would bet it was thousands, yet this so-called study focused on 78.
So the headline should rightly say "Brain Metastases Common in 78 Ovarian Cancer Patients in 27 years". But this would not have garnered nearly as much attention, would it?
I have long noticed this tendency of MedPage to sensationalize in its headlines. Shame on them.
Here is a similar study done by/at MD Anderson which is NOT misleading because it states the number of patients there over the years who had ovarian cancer (8,225) versus the number studied (72).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15015663
This is even more accurate: http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/11/3/252.full
Background. Brain metastases from epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) are rare. This report is based on a review of the literature.0 -
Greg, thank you very much for taking the time to answer my
questions. There are many who will be greatly appreciative and will think about what you had to say. Most of us are truly trying to learn as much as we can as fast as we can to enable us to make informed decisions.
An MRI would be a great non toxic way to check for brain mets. Thanks for that suggestion also.
Again, my heartfelt thanks for your time, and my apologies for...
Claudia0 -
Thank You, JoAnnJoAnnDK said:MedPage Today
Greg, MedPageToday should be ashamed of itself for this headline:
ASTRO: Brain Metastases Common in Ovarian Cancer
.....when this is not true at all and was extrapolated from ONE abstract of an article that has not yet even been peer-reviewed OR published in a medical journal.
This was one study of 78 women ---- conducted over 27 years. How many cases of ovarian cancer were seen at Sloan Kettering in those 27 years? I would bet it was thousands, yet this so-called study focused on 78.
So the headline should rightly say "Brain Metastases Common in 78 Ovarian Cancer Patients in 27 years". But this would not have garnered nearly as much attention, would it?
I have long noticed this tendency of MedPage to sensationalize in its headlines. Shame on them.
Here is a similar study done by/at MD Anderson which is NOT misleading because it states the number of patients there over the years who had ovarian cancer (8,225) versus the number studied (72).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15015663
This is even more accurate: http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/11/3/252.full
Background. Brain metastases from epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) are rare. This report is based on a review of the literature.
Thanks for taking the time to find research that balances the discussion. I would suspect that the MedPage headline is to grab the reader's attention. For me I try to look at both sides of the issue. It is human nature I guess to cite those articles that support a premise. I tend to look for things that support my choices while hopefully keeping an open mind.
Thanks Greg for starting this discussion. Your concern to share the information is appreciated. Sorry I didn't have the answer to the multiple posts. (Claudia said it is not from clicking the send button numerous times.)
Especially, thanks to those who have taken the time to add their comments. I think having a discussion is the whole point here, doncha' think? Love you!!! ladies and gentlemen.0 -
Good Morning, Normanorma2 said:Thank You, JoAnn
Thanks for taking the time to find research that balances the discussion. I would suspect that the MedPage headline is to grab the reader's attention. For me I try to look at both sides of the issue. It is human nature I guess to cite those articles that support a premise. I tend to look for things that support my choices while hopefully keeping an open mind.
Thanks Greg for starting this discussion. Your concern to share the information is appreciated. Sorry I didn't have the answer to the multiple posts. (Claudia said it is not from clicking the send button numerous times.)
Especially, thanks to those who have taken the time to add their comments. I think having a discussion is the whole point here, doncha' think? Love you!!! ladies and gentlemen.
I acutally agree it is too many button hitting attempts that cause the multiple posts. I suggested he contact csn by using the Contact us at the very top of the page and asking them to delete his mulitple posts.
So what do you put turmeric on this early in the morning?
Don't you just gain from the back and forth of it all? Very interesting.
You have a very wonderful day.0 -
Hi, Jan,
Thanks, I do remember what you had said about Greg, and I was the one, who having read this on the ovarian board, asked if he wouldn't mind posting the info here as it could be relevant to some. I am very sorry that he seems to be given a bit of a hard time. That is unfortunate.
Sometimes people forget that we are all in different stages of our journey and not all of us have been here from the beginning and have had the advantage of having read all the posts. Those with prior knowledge wil, I'm sure just move on to a different topic.
Is that what you meant?
Claudia
I do rather wish that posts would show up under the post you are replying to, as it can get rather difficult to follow what a person is responding to, especially in a long thread like this one.0 -
alternative?california_artist said:Hi, Jan,
Thanks, I do remember what you had said about Greg, and I was the one, who having read this on the ovarian board, asked if he wouldn't mind posting the info here as it could be relevant to some. I am very sorry that he seems to be given a bit of a hard time. That is unfortunate.
Sometimes people forget that we are all in different stages of our journey and not all of us have been here from the beginning and have had the advantage of having read all the posts. Those with prior knowledge wil, I'm sure just move on to a different topic.
Is that what you meant?
Claudia
I do rather wish that posts would show up under the post you are replying to, as it can get rather difficult to follow what a person is responding to, especially in a long thread like this one.
With all this discussion of brain mets and taxol, what is the alternative? Are there any studies that show results for women who did not get treated with taxol and brain mets? The info just posted seems to lump all chemo in the weakening BBB barrier. So can't this claim be made of all chemo???
Accurate info is good ammunition for decision-making however, we need to have a larger BREATH of information to avoid "knee jerk" reactions. I guess this will continue to grow.
One concern I would have about getting routine MRI of brain is possible side effects of the test!! There was an article about that in recent CURE mag about dangers of testing.
If brain mets typically first start in the lungs, then my doc's comments would hold true.0 -
have a wonderful day!!!california_artist said:Hi, Jan,
Thanks, I do remember what you had said about Greg, and I was the one, who having read this on the ovarian board, asked if he wouldn't mind posting the info here as it could be relevant to some. I am very sorry that he seems to be given a bit of a hard time. That is unfortunate.
Sometimes people forget that we are all in different stages of our journey and not all of us have been here from the beginning and have had the advantage of having read all the posts. Those with prior knowledge wil, I'm sure just move on to a different topic.
Is that what you meant?
Claudia
I do rather wish that posts would show up under the post you are replying to, as it can get rather difficult to follow what a person is responding to, especially in a long thread like this one.
have a wonderful day!!!0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.8K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 309 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 397 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.4K Kidney Cancer
- 671 Leukemia
- 792 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 237 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 61 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.5K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 539 Sarcoma
- 730 Skin Cancer
- 653 Stomach Cancer
- 191 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.8K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards