More numbers again

Yesterday afternoon I went for a six month follow up with my oncologist. I realized in the morning that I should have some questions to ask her. I mean why see an oncologist if you have no concerns? So I had to think.

After some deep thought I came up with issue number one - what about staying on Femara longer? New research has shown that longer is better in terms of preventing recurrence of breast cancer. I did not see her in person on my last visit to her office as she had the flu but I had spoken to her afterwards.

Then I decided I needed the big question answered. What is my prognosis for recurrence? I did ask my previous oncologist this once right after treatment ended, before he moved on to research. But that was five years ago and I haven't asked for an update. Why not? It is a big question but I figured I should know. Why have I gone through all this treatment and follow up anyway?

After pondering this for a few hours, I decided this was it. When I met with her, we discussed me and Femara first. The real issue is that I am handling it well - particularly my bone density has been stable which is a big criteria. Its one thing to prevent cancer recurrence but another thing to give you osteoporosis in the meantime. But my bone density is stable so its a go.

The added benefit of additional years of  Femara is seen in the ensuing years. So if I take Femara from 2010-2015, I will continue to see the benefit in 2015-2020. I can live with that.

My next question I think was a bit of a surprise for my oncologist but I did ask her what is my likelihood of recurrence. She said its probably less than 10% at this point based on my diagnosis specifics and treatment. I thought that wasn't bad.

But I immediately went home and looked up breast cancer statistics and see how I compared. A normal 50 year old woman has a 2.38% chance of getting breast cancer in the next ten years. But I have already skewed the odds that say a 40 year old woman has a 1.47% chance of getting breast cancer by age 50.

So its all a bunch of numbers but I can't let them mean much to me.

But the best news is I don't have to go back and see her again for a year.

Spinning Statistics

Of all the nerve, two professors have dared to criticize the Komen Foundation for the Cure for spinning mammography statistics in a campaign last October. David takes on Goliath and Goliath (a/k/a Komen for the Cure) replies with screening saves lives. Well yes we can't dispute that but we can disupute this which is taken from their ad last fall:

"early detection saves lives. The five-year survival rate for breast cancer when caught early is 98%. When it's not? 23%."

So somewhere in breast cancer statistics I am sure there is a 23% survival rate but just because you don't have regular screening doesn't mean  your cancer won't be caught until its stage IV and you get that 23% survival rate. But let's not spin the numbers here. Are they trying to scare women  into having mammograms instead of educating them?

Part of marketing is taking the features and benefits and writing about them. The feature here is regular mammograms can catch cancers earlier. The benefit is better odds for survival.

I write marketing stuff for a living. My copy writing skills might be slightly impinged by the early hour but I think I can do better than them and not mislead anyone. Perhaps they should have said something like:

Early stage breast cancer has a five year survival rate of 98% and late stage breast cancer can have a five year survival rate of 23%. Regular mammograms will help any cancer to be caught early.

Hmmm... Kudos to the professors. A big thumbs down to Komen.

Mammograms and statistics

The AMA has said (finally) that yearly mammograms should start at age 40. Back in 2009, some group of rocket scientists recommended they start at age 50 for women with normal risk factors. That started a big 'To-Do' and everyone (and their brother) had an opinion. They have joined the ranks of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; the American College of Radiology; the American Cancer Society; the National Cancer Institute; and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network who also say 40, unlike the rocket scientists.

So maybe the AMA is a bit slow here but its nice to see them on the bandwagon with everyone else promoting something that's common sense.

Especially since it has been learned that women who work night shifts are between 30 and 40% more likely to get breast cancer. This last set of statistics proves two things:

1. Lots of things cause breast cancer so we all have a higher risk and therefore all women really need the mammograms.
2. It is possible to reach analysis paralysis with breast cancer statistics, just like any other kind of statistics.

That's enough for today. I'm going to the beach.