<p>" Elizabeth Edwards’ public statements on cancer usually acknowledged that the access she had to the best possible care was not available to most people."</p>
<p>I always wondered, though, if she had gone to the doctor immediately when she found those lumps, instead of waiting until her husband conceded the campaign, would she have had a chance at survival? I know little about cancer, but I do know breast cancer is highly curable when caught early. Would those weeks or months have saved her life? If she had gotten a yearly mammogram, as most of us do at that age, would that have saved her? Having the best possible care…but too late, may have been less effective than what us normal women with average care do, as in make our appt with our doctor immediately, in a panic, and get our mammograms. I always wonder, is there a way that person could have been saved?</p>
<p>Breast cancer is not one disease. There is not just one cancer that attacks the breast. Some are more curable than others.</p>
<p>I have lost dear friends to breast cancer. I really debate the assertion that breast cancer is highly curable. It’s a treatable disease, but I don’t think anyone should call it highly curable, even when caught early.</p>
<p>And for some of us, mammograms don’t necessarily give accurate readings either.</p>
<p>“I have lost dear friends to breast cancer. I really debate the assertion that breast cancer is highly curable. It’s a treatable disease, but I don’t think anyone should call it highly curable, even when caught early.”</p>
<p>Okay, bad phrasing, more like highly treatable, or survivable? Those of us whom have not yet to deal with that personally will unfortunately probably learn the appropriate lingo sooner or later. I just want to know what the best way to survive it is. Do you get the mammogram every year, or do you skip a year like they’d recently recommended? It just seems that there are many different opinions, on such a widespread disease.</p>
<p>Cancer is a systemic thing- unless you have a superficial & slowgrowing skin cancer that can be totally removed- it is not often limited to one site with a predictive course.</p>
<p>If there’s one cancer that women worry about most, it’s breast cancer. And the earlier you can detect breast cancer, the better. That’s why the American Cancer Society and the American Medical Association recommend that starting at age 40, women should get an annual breast examination and screening mammogram.
[Digital</a> Mammography | Seattle Cancer Care Alliance](<a href=“http://www.seattlecca.org/mammography.cfm]Digital”>http://www.seattlecca.org/mammography.cfm)</p>
<p>I don’t know about the Edwards fertility treatments but at 53 I am having normal & regular periods & happy that my H had a vasectomy years ago. Most of the time.</p>
<p>Bc can be very elusive and very difficult to predict. It is better to be diagnosed early but then there are the people who are diagnosed early who do not fare well. Then you get the people who are diagnosed advanced and they do better. this is what makes the life with BC and actually many cancers very tough. There is just no way to know where you will fall. Bc takes on many forms as already stated. I know she had a huge tumor 9cm. I dont know the pathology of the actual tumor, aggressive vs slow growing or if her nodes were affected.
the best way to catch BC is to be diligent, have yearly mammograms, and do SBE know your breasts. Many women (including me ) find there own cancers. Having said that my last cancer was not found on mammogram or by several doctors that I had seen that year. It is a type that does not show on mammogram. and while it is not “protocol” I am still angry that I was not advised to get an MRI. It would have been detected on MRI. I would advocate for this on women at risk and with a history of BC. both familial and personal. It is what I will advocate for my kids if I have to pay for it myself.
Maintain a healthy weight, some studies are showing that taking an aspirin a day is effective way to help prevent BC. maintaining a adequate vit D level. healthy eating and daily exersize. Making yourself and your health a priority. I am sorry to be on my sopabox but if I can impart any knowledge or help one other person out, I want to do this because although I am getting on withthings cancer really does suck and I wouldnt wish it on my worst enemy.</p>
<p>I also wonder what the effects of fertility treatments and pregnancy had on her BC diagnosis. I think she was hormone receptor positive and fertility treatments can add fuel to the fire. I know she did not have mammograms for four years.
I dont know about her politics i admire her strength and courage.</p>
<p>I would agree that the stress of treatments/campaigning probably compromised her immune system- but 2nd guessing isn’t doing anyone any good & it is really annoying when it seems like bystanders are trying to find a way that those who are struck with misfortune * bring it on themselves* or deserve it in some way.</p>
<p>To borrow from a very wise & compassionate woman that I know -</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lets see some compassion- is that really so difficult?</p>
<p>EK - love those quotes. Can you attribute it to someone? I’d love to quote that myself.</p>
<p>busdriver - it’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It’s a matter of being rude and condescending, and frankly hateful. It would be possible to disagree that Elizabeth was worthy of our respect and emulation. But atacom said, “She and her husband were/are greedy power hungry attention seekers. Good riddance.” GOOD RIDDANCE? That’s not reasonable discourse. </p>
<p>Elizabeth’s breast cancer was a recurrence. I recall when it came back she confessed that she hadn’t been keeping up with her mammograms and other tests in a timely way because there was so much else going on, and she felt horribly guilty that her family was going to have to suffer with her because of it. Who knows if they had caught it quicker the second time if she’d still be alive? I’ve read that lately some doctors are beginning to wonder if some cancers just metastasize and some don’t, no matter how early or late you catch them. At any rate, I wouldn’t ever blame her for her own death.</p>
<p>My mother passed away of ovarian cancer. I’ll admit, at times I get sick of all the attention - and money - that breast cancer garners. BC has an 80+% cure rate. OC is around 25%. And there is no good reliable test for OC like a mammogram is for BC. But that still means that BC kills 15% of its victims, and it is the most common female cancer. I’d like to see more money devoted to finding a reliable test for OC. When found early, ovarian cancer is 90% curable. But less than 1/4 of ovarian cancers are found early, because the symptoms are so quiet and often misdiagnosed, and because there is no reliable test. A simple blood test for OC could save thousands of lives every year. </p>
<p>But that doesn’t mean Breast Cancer isn’t deadly or worth researching.</p>
<p>Lafalum, I’m sorry to hear of your loss of your mother to ovarian cancer, and you make a good point.</p>
<p>I’ve read that heart disease kills many, many more women in any given year than bc. By far. And though the symptomotology, progression, and other aspects are quite different than they are for men, heart disease in women is extremely under-researched and under-funded.</p>
<p>It’s interesting the way some diseases become so enormously “popular” (don’t misunderstand) in the public eye, and that funding hugely outpaces occurrence, compared to other killer diseases. Not quite sure why this happens.</p>
<p>Lafalum, I remember a number of years ago getting all these emails from friends saying that we should insist upon getting the ovarian cancer test CA-125. I admit, I haven’t gotten one. My doctors have never even offered it, and I haven’t insisted. It apparently was a very reliable test. I wonder if anyone knows what the deal is on that one. Does the data say that it is still worth getting (particularly if insurance will cover it)? A neighbor of mine died from it in her thirties. I just couldn’t believe it. </p>
<p>Same with pancreatic cancer. It’s a silent killer, no way to detect it and when detected, it’s too late. My mother died from pancreatic cancer when she was 54 years old, 6 months after diagnosis, 27 years ago. In 27 years, little progress has been made either with detection or treatment. Once diagnosed, the average prognosis is still 6-8 months before death. Patrick Swayze was an outlier, to live 18 months after diagnosis. I wish Aretha Franklin luck.</p>
<p>My grandmother died of ovarian cancer at age 42. She only lived to see one of her 4 children get married but never saw any of her subsequent 12 grandchildren.</p>
<p>Both my mother and grandmother had no known risk factor, non-smokers, non-drinkers and not overweight. Given my family medical history, I asked my doctor to authorize an ultrasound on my abdomen last year and even that may not detect it.</p>
<p>Elizabeth Edwards probably had intense hormone treatments so she could give birth to her last two children. Can’t eliminate that as a contributing factor.</p>
<p>I believe that Elizabeth Edwards found the lump just a few days before the 2004 election, so she did not wait long to have it biopsied. She has said that she neglected to have mammograms for several years because she was so busy. I am certainly guilty of not keeping up with my own medical care, while making sure that my sons have every recommended visit, test, vaccination, etc.</p>
<p>I did not realize that her daughter, Cate, had recently gotten engaged. Nice that Elizabeth lived to see that since she will miss so many milestones in her kids’ lives and they will miss her.</p>
<p>busdriver11, CA125 in and of its self is NOT a reliable screening for Ovarian Cancer. If you do not have a family history, a current cyst or a history of having cysts, there’s no real reason for you to have a CA125 blood test. There are things other than ovarian cancer (cysts, etc) that can raise your CA125 level, and some people with ovca don’t present with an elevated CA125. It’s reliability is as low as 50%. So why does the test exist?
In conjunction with other factors - family history, current cyst, questionable ultrasound, etc, it can be an indicating factor.
In women with elevated risk (family history, etc), a series of CA125 tests over a period of time can establish a baseline and an increase can indicate a cause for concern.
In women who are already diagnosed and being treated for ovarian, a rising CA125 level is a fairly easy and relatively reliable way to tell if the treatment is working or if the cancer is coming back.
Because both my mother and my father’s sister passed away from ovca, I have a CA125 done annually. Mine has always been below 10 - and anything below 30 is fine. My mom did not have a CA125 before her exploratory surgery that found her cancer, so we don’t know what her level was. After treatment it went down to single digits, but when the cancer was returning it was as high as 300 - 500.</p>
<p>Also read a great quote from the Edward’s late son Wade, this is inscribed on the wall of the Wade Edwards Learning Laboratory - he wrote it at age 15, a year before he died:</p>
<p>I just watched a video excerpt of Cate’s eulogy to her mom. As a mom myself, it really chokes me up. I don’t know how Cate did it but she showed much grace, like her mom.</p>