Cancer's silver lining... Free housecleaning!

BY SUSAN MCCLURE | NOVEMBER 19, 2009

If you know a woman currently undergoing chemotherapy, tell her that there is a cleaning service that provides FREE housecleaning once per month for four months while she's in treatment. All she has to do is sign up and have her doctor fax a note confirming the treatment. Cleaning for a Reason will have a participating maid service in her area arrange for the service. Click here to to learn more http://www.cleaningforareason.org/ This organization serves the entire Country and has 547 partners to help take the tough work of housecleaning off of women in need. So spread the word and let them know that there are people out there that care-- and clean!

Federal task force says women need fewer mammograms. Sound reasoning or rationing?

BY SUSAN MCCLURE | NOVEMBER 17, 2009

Bewilderment. That's the only word I can use to describe how I felt upon reading an article in my daily newspaper this morning (Yes, I still read the daily paper). The story reported on an influential federal task force's recommendation that women have fewer mammograms. "We're not saying that women shouldn't get screened. Screening saves lives," said Diana Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. "But we are recommending against routine screening. There are important and serious negatives or harms that need to be considered carefully." The recommendations of this committee would set the standards for preventative health care services under health care reform and would be used to determine which tests would be covered by insurance plans. These guidelines are for the general population, not for those at high risk of breast cancer.

The 16-member committee recommended that most women in their 40s should not routinely get mammograms. Additionally, women 50 to 74 should get mammograms every other year until they turn 75, after which the risks and benefits are unknown. Women 75 and older should not get regular screening. The committee is also against teaching women to do regular self exams because "the value of breast exams by doctors is unknown and breast self exams are of no value."

Those who side with the task force's findings say that more testing, exams, and treatment are not always beneficial and may cause harm to patients. The article stated that in about 10 percent of cases, false positive results caused anxiety among patients and lead to unnecessary procedures such as disfiguring biopsies and in some cases, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.

Those on the opposing side said that this is a huge step in the wrong direction. Daniel Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School said, "Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and these idiots want to do away with it." Dr. Phil Evans, director of the Center for Breast Care at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas predicted that conducting fewer mammograms would be a mistake. "Mammography is not a perfect test, but it's still the best test for finding breast cancer early," argued Evans.

The most ominous quote in the article came from Dr. Michael Grant, my breast surgeon at Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas. He said that the timing of this made him suspicious. "Ultimately, this may be how we provide rationale for rationing. They're not saying it isn't worth it -- just that the number of lives it saves is not counter balanced by the cost and trouble of doing it," said Grant. Roughly 39 million women in the U.S. have mammograms each year, costing the healthcare system more than $5 billion annually.

I think I need to dust off my old copy of George Orwell's, Animal Farm. This arguement is sounding vaguely familiar. "All animals are equal-- just some are more equal than others."

Fanged frogs cure cancer! You just wait... It could happen

BY SUSAN MCCLURE | SEPTEMBER 9, 2009

A friend of mine called me yesterday to tell me about an astonishing discovery. Forty new species, including fanged frogs, super-sized rats, and a grunting fish have been discovered in an extinct volcano in New Guinea. He was marveling at how cool our planet is while I was wondering to myself why these new discoveries couldn't include soft, cuddly new dog species. Maybe these discoveries were best left undiscovered. Then it dawned on me... What if the cure for cancer is contained in one of these new plant or animal discoveries? Could fanged frogs save us all? Many of cancer's most innovative treatments have been derived from plants, sea creatures, etc... Don't believe me? Check out our Summer 2006 cover story "Surf & Turf: Nature's Hidden Medicines."

To read more about the 40 new species, go to www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/07/discovery-species-papua-new-guinea

Certain anti-depressants taken with tamoxifen pose risk

BY SUSAN MCCLURE | SEPTEMBER 8, 2009

In CURE's upcoming Fall issue we write about the importance of talking with your doctor if you are taking tamoxifen along with an anti-depressant such as Prozac, Paxil, or Zoloft--three widely prescribed serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs for short). Many women are prescribed anti-depressants to combat hot flashes--a well documented side effect of tamoxifen. New studies indicate that certain SSRIs may in fact put women at a much higher risk for recurrent breast cancer. It appears that not all SSRIs are alike, and while some demonstrated cause for alarm, others didn't pose a problem at all. Before you flush your anti-depressants down the toilet, however, let me give you a warning... Don't discontinue taking any anti-depressant without first consulting your doctor.

I was talking with a close friend recently who began taking Lexapro a couple of years ago to combat hot flashes. She lives in Brazil now and has discovered that it's very difficult to get her prescriptions filled in South America. She was spending a few hundred dollars each month to refill her prescription and decided to stop taking the Lexapro rather than battle the bureaucracy. In her mind, the benefit didn't outweigh the cost.

Fast forward a couple of weeks... She began to feel like she was getting the flu. She was achy, having chills, was feverish, and disoriented. She was incredibly depressed too. She slept all day and told me that she didn't even have enough energy to go outside. As her mystery illness progressed, she and her husband became very concerned. After a bit of investigative work (and an overdue trip to the doctor), they realized that she was experiencing withdrawal symptoms from her abrupt discontinuation of Lexapro. She was put back on the medication and after a few days, she felt normal again. Her doctor informed her that she should never stop taking her Lexapro without talking to him first and that she needed to gradually wean herself from the drug in order to minimize the risk of withdrawal symptoms.

All drugs are given with specific product information. It's a good idea to keep the package insert for future reference–-since some people experience the infrequent side effects, which can be major. And always discuss stopping a medication with your doctor-- don't just do it.

When ordinary people do extraordinary things

BY SUSAN MCCLURE | JULY 1, 2009

Currently, the world is abuzz with news of Michael Jackson's death. When a superstar like Jackson dies, it becomes difficult to find a news agency that isn't covering the story 24/7. We can't hide from it. Our voyeuristic fascination with the rich and famous sometimes makes us miss the more poignant, heartwarming, heroic tales of people like us--ordinary people who do extraordinary things.

Take the story of Dr. Jerri Nielson Fitzgerald. She's the doctor who discovered and treated her own breast cancer while stationed in Antarctica in 1999. Her base was closed for the winter when she detected a lump in her breast. There was no way for her to be airlifted to a hospital until the weather improved. When the lymph nodes under her arm began to swell she realized that if she didn't do something drastic she might not make it out alive.

With the help of a welder she performed a biopsy on herself in order to confirm that she did indeed have cancer. She said that she'd work on herself until she got tired, then he'd do it, then she'd do it, and so on. Once the cancer was confirmed, she had supplies airdropped by a US Air Force plane and taught the welder how to administer chemotherapy. Three months later when the weather improved, she was airlifted out.

Dr. Nielson Fitzgerald wrote a book about her harrowing journey called Ice Bound: A Doctor's Incredible Battle for Survival at the South Pole, and was in remission until 2005 when her cancer returned. She spent the final years of her life inspiring cancer patients worldwide, saying that her experience with the disease gave her life "colour and texture." She also said that she used to think adventures were a thing of the past and that no more were to be found. Her time at the South Pole taught her that adventures are all around us. "The adventure is now", she said.

Dr. Nielson Fitzgerald died on June 24th--one day before Michael Jackson.

Finally, good news for triple negative breast cancer patients!

BY SUSAN MCCLURE | JUNE 9, 2009

During ASCO's annual meeting this year, I was thrilled to learn that a new drug class is offering promise to patients with triple negative breast cancer. PARP inhibitors--experimental targeted therapy medicines, may make chemotherapy work better against aggressive forms of breast cancer (see Debu Tripathy's blog for the details). For years, I've been happy to see great advancements in the treatment of breast cancer, but have selfishly been concerned that no real progress was being made to better understand triple-negative cancers.

When I was diagnosed with breast cancer back in 1994, the term "triple-negative" breast cancer didn't exist. Diagnostic tests weren't as sophisticated as they are today. I did know that I was estrogen receptor-negative and that while my cancer was aggressive, it hadn't spread to my lymph nodes. I had surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Within six months my treatment was over, and I was told to get on with my life. Six months of treatment and I was done. So why were some of my friends, also estrogen receptor-negative, not so fortunate?

It was years later, during a routine check up with my oncologist that I asked him to review my pathology report to see if he thought that I might have fallen into the triple-negative camp. After close examination, he shrugged his shoulders and said that, most likely, I did. To be sure, they'd have to go down to the basement of Baylor, find my 12-year-old tumor, and run it through the gauntlet of diagnostic tests now available to determine such things. Eeek.

I've been cancer free for twelve years. I've lived with never really knowing what caused my cancer. I've lived with the fear that it might return--as we all do. I've lost friends with triple-negative breast cancer who ran out of treatment options far before they ran out of hope. For me, this new development honors their memory.

Mom and teen home, but debate rages on...

BY SUSAN MCCLURE | MAY 29, 2009

I'm sure many of you have been following the plight of Daniel Hauser, the 13-year-old Minnesota boy who scrambled to the Mexico border with his mom in order to avoid undergoing court ordered chemotherapy. For those of you who haven't, let me catch you up. In January Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma-- what experts are calling "a highly curable disease". He had one round of chemotherapy before his parents told doctors that he wasn't going to have any further treatment. The first treatment resulted in a reduction of cancer, but because Daniel hasn't had another treatment since, his cancer has returned to pre-treatment levels. The doctors were very concerned. So concerned in fact, they turned the matter over to the courts. They said Daniel has a good chance of achieving a complete remission if he resumes treatment. They felt that Daniel's life was in jeopardy and that his parents weren't acting in his best interest. Knowing that the courts were likely to force Daniel into chemotherapy, he and his mom fled town. Well, they're home now, less than a week since their life on the run began. Daniel's parents have told the judge that they will abide by whatever ruling is made--even if that means undergoing more chemotherapy.

But why did the Hausers decide against such a proven treatment plan in the first place? Like most issues related to cancer, it's complicated. The family is Roman Catholic, but they belong to a group called the Nemenhah Band, which promotes a "Do no harm" philosophy. They believe in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians as an alternative to traditional treatment. In fact, Daniel and his mother believe that the treatment for his cancer is what will end up killing him-- not the cancer itself. They were seeking "less toxic" options to treat his cancer.

That decision resulted in a heated national debate surrounding the government's right to intervene in cases such as this. According to a recent MSNBC poll in which participants were asked if parents should be allowed to refuse cancer treatments for their sick children, public opinion was split. Of the 77,276 people who responded as of May 28th, 55% said "Yes, families should be allowed to make their own decisions in every aspect of medical care", and 45% said "No, refusing care that could save someone's life is a form of medical neglect". Many who answered "yes" said that while they did believe that the parents were putting the child at risk, this is America and we have a little document called The Bill of Rights that protect people in cases such as this. Those who answered "no" said that this was just another form of child abuse and that refusing to render medical aid to a sick child is unjustifiable.

I was thinking about my own cancer treatment and wondered how I would feel if someone told me that I had no right to refuse a particular therapy. Granted, I was 35 when I was diagnosed--not 13. What do you think? I'm looking forward to your comments.