Long term risks of cancer treatment

A recent study revealed that most of the survivors of childhood cancers, end up with life long health problems. I find this a bit scary. It shows that cancer treatment can cause long term health issues. Yes what was standard treatment up to 48 years ago, the length of time from the longest survivor's treatment, certainly is not standard today.

Cancer treatment has been likened to a slash and burn. Cut out what can be found and then burn it with radiation and then go after it systemically with chemotherapy. It must leave long term issues as it is such a harsh system of treatment.

But how are we going to be in 40 years? Will our cancer treatments impact our potential longevity? But what about those of us who have had cancer treatments? Because we survived treatment are we then putting our future health at risk? What didn't kill us, may not have made us stronger but the treatment may kill us in the end.

Perhaps more research is needed.

Just say no to cancer

This is the attitude we should all take. We should say no to cancer. Its not going to run my life.

Or through this link.

At my first diagnosis I said 'What the hell is going on with me?' and decades later had unresolved issues. You may call me a slow learner compared to Gloria Borges. It too me to my second round to be a bit more proactive.

Repeat after me: cancer will not suck the life out of me!

My goals

Now these are not by any stretch New Year's Resolutions - that isn't until next week so I have lots of time left to procrastinate on them. These are goals of things I want to do. I mean besides win the lottery or find the cure for cancer and stuff like that. These are just some basic goals.

I have been reading other people's blogs for as long as I have been blogging. Most of them are written by other cancer people. I also hang out online with all sorts of healthy and unhealthy people. I have learned a lot about how people regard life with their ailments. I know what I think but sometimes I am a slacker.

Okay, here they are:

• I will not succumb  to the 'woe is  me' attitude. So I had cancer twice now (and am still here) but it is not a case of woe is me. I will prevail.
• Cancer is not going to kill me anytime soon. I don't care what stage you are, your cancer is not necessarily what is going to kill you. You could get hit by a bus tomorrow just like anyone else. If you are Stage IV, it is still true for you - a bus could come your way. So why live like cancer is what is going to do you in? And with treatment these days, there are people living out there for decades with metastases. So my goal is to live as long as possible.
• There is a lot more to life than my list of ailments and boxes of pills and doctor appointments. I can't do some of the things I used to be able to do - like skiing off the top of the headwall into a big bowl of powder snow, or climb big mountains, or whatever. But I still can do a lot of things and have fun doing it. 

I think that's enough for today. I need to get some work done and clean the house in preparation for house guests (well sort of clean). But I do have to get to work.

Did having cancer change you?

They did  a new study (because these pesky researchers need to stay employed) on how people who had been diagnosed with and treated for cancer were doing both physically and medically after treatment.

Well its about time. What did they think that after our oncologists and surgeons send us on our merry way and only want to see us yearly instead of weekly we would just be fine? Seriously. For patients, it has always been a cliff where treatment ends and we are supposed to cope just fine as we switch from constant monitoring to yearly check ups. The doctors abruptly cut the cord. Many patients have an emotional upheaval that coincides with this transition and seek additional support. Its nice that the medical field is taking a closer look at how we cope in the ensuing years.

The study looked at, from the patient's perspective, physical functioning, pain, fatigue, and depression. They compared them to normal people who had never been diagnosed with cancer and found that:

• People who had breast, prostate or melanomas had the same or better quality of life as the people who had never had cancer. 
• People who had cervical, blood, or colorectal cancers and cancers with a 5 year survival rate of less than 25% (liver, pancreas, and lung) had worse physical health related quality of life.
• People with cervical cancer and cancers with low survival rates had worse mental quality of life. The goal is to check again in five years and see how these groups are doing with the advances in treatment.

As we are aware I am not a doctor, researcher or anyone qualified in anyway shape or form to do research as I a merely a cancer person. BUT, as I look at the different cancers they list and the outcome issues, I had a few comments (of course);

• The people who did well were the ones who had the 'high visibility' cancers - breast, prostate, and melanoma. I think of these as high visibility as they get a lot of press. We have pinkificiation for breast cancer. We have PSA tests and possible over diagnosis of prostate cancer and its all over the media. Melanoma is ingrained in all of us as we use sunscreen since birth nowadays. These cancers are talked about, videoed, profiled, and media hyped to no end.
• The people who did poorly physically had the cancers that either had low survival rates or less popular/lower profile cancers. Are they less acceptable cancers to get? Are their treatment protocols more 'damaging' to the human body?
• The people who did poorly mentally had cancers with lower survival rates. This is the most logical to me. If you are told you have cancer and have a low chance of living more than a few years, what is your mental state going to be?

In my mind, this is incredibly important to monitor. Cancer patients are poisoned, burned, and cut up and given a horrible diagnosis. Doctors want to know about every sniffle all through treatment. Then the doctors say 'see you in six months or a year' and the patient is supposed to be 'fine'. Ha.

Keep researching this one. There are lots  of us who would be happy to help in the research.

The cost of cancer care

New drugs are developed which offer hope to many with late stage cancers. You can't really put a price on a human life and some how I think that drug manufacturers know this so they have no problems charging these outrageous prices. One was $120,000 for FOUR doses. Another is $10,000 per month. A third is $80,000/year.

If you are in a clinical trial you get the drugs free. So obviously they can afford to give them away. So if you are paying are you paying for the free ones that went to other people and for all the research costs? I wonder what these cost outside the US. There should be some kind of global pricing standard for medications.

And then for these drugs a success rate of 40-50% is considered good. It means the patients are still alive.

The whole hope is to keep patients alive but if they die bankrupt because of their medical bills they probably couldn't afford much in the last few weeks to enjoy life?

Something is broken here in many ways.