Waiting for a Phone Call

 

phoneNext Thursday morning, at precisely 8 a.m., I will find out the next step in my ongoing journey in Cancerland, a place you can never really leave once you arrive. That is the time I have set aside for a phone call from the genetic counselor I met with before Christmas. This will be the third conversation I’ve had with the counselor, but this is the critical one because it determines what I do next: fall back into the web of anxiety and ongoing medical procedures, or take one very deep, free breath.

My first conversation with the genetic counselor was about 5 years ago, after I completed treatment for breast cancer. My oncologist suggested that I consider getting a genetic test to determine whether the cancer I had was related to a mutation in either of the two most popular genes that cause it. (I say “most popular” because, as geneticists are discovering, there are other genes involved in breast cancer).

On the appointed day, I drove the 90 minutes up the freeway to the counselor’s office, where we reviewed every piece of family healthy history that I could recall –which relatives had died and which were still living, the cause of death of each deceased relative, and the health conditions in the relatives still alive. I did my best to remember every story, every shred of health information I’d picked up over the years of being part of this family.

Yes, there is my grandmother who had an undefined breast cancer around 1970 that eventually recurred and took her life about 12 years later. And yes, there are various other relatives who had cancer of various types:  colon, bone, and skin. But no other instances of breast cancer and none of ovarian cancer, the two telltale markers of a genetic propensity for people like me.

This recording of my extended family’s health history took quite a bit of time that day. One advantage of having a large (nominally Catholic) family is that you’ve got lots of opportunities to spot any patterns of illness, cancer or otherwise. Among my 4 siblings, 9 aunts and uncles, and 35 cousins, my family health map was pretty clear of signs of a genetic problem.  The counselor thought it was not likely I had the bad genes. And so, I decided then not to have the test.

The next conversation with the counselor was about 3 years ago, when I learned a close relative had also been diagnosed with breast cancer. I called to determine whether that occurrence increased the likelihood of my having the genetic flaw.  But the other relative had a different type of breast cancer, at a different stage of life, and had been on hormone replacement therapy. The counselor’s answer was, once again, “not likely.”

So, you may be wondering, why the third conversation? Why ask again when the odds seem ever in my favor?

Here’s why:

The research on breast cancer is constantly evolving, and there is more and more evidence that the type of cancer I had – triple negative – is driven by genetics more often than the “garden variety” hormone-related breast cancers. Oversimplified media reports imply that most breast cancers are related to gene flaws, which is simply not true.  Only 5% to 10% of hormone-positive breast cancers relate to genetic deficiencies, but the burgeoning research on triple negative cancer shows that as many as 15% of these cases relate to genetics. Though that number is far from a majority, the possibility is great enough to make testing reasonable.

The other factor is that Myriad Genetics, the company that initially developed the genetic test for BRCA1 and BRCA2, was forced to give up its patent on these genes in 2013. This ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court meant that other companies were free to develop genetic tests for breast cancer (and Myriad could no longer get away with charging several thousand dollars for the test).

So, when my oncologist once again suggested the genetic test at my checkup back in November, I decided I’d bite the proverbial bullet and get it done, if for no other reason than to find out whether my children would have anything to worry about.

The test itself is simple – they draw blood and send it off for analysis. The results, however, may not be so simple.

First, there’s a choice of which test to take:

  1. the one that checks for only BRCA 1 and 2
  2. the one that also looks for other genes implicated in breast/ovarian cancer (PALB2, BRIP 1, and another whose name I can’t recall)
  3. or the one that finds every genetic anomaly you have (as far as they can be currently identified)

In other words, the choice is this – how much anxiety do you want to introduce into your days?

In my situation, it no longer seems enough to look for just BRCA1 and 2. But I also don’t need to worry about a bunch of genes that might not be functioning properly but aren’t causing trouble and about which I can do nothing. So I chose the second option.

Ten more days to wait for a phone call.

Advertisements

Ordinary Moments

About 6 years ago, I noticed changes in my breast that eventually led to a diagnosis of triple-negative breast cancer. Six years later, I am ever grateful for the simple fact that I am alive.

But over these past 6 years, I’ve been plagued by the idea that – having survived a potentially deadly disease — I should be doing greater things with my life. This idea, I suspect, is one of the unmentioned after-effects of cancer, promoted by all the smiling faces on survivorship posters, the Facebook people who post their travel photos, the TV ads that show active people feasting on the very air. Look at all those survivors  – starting foundations, running marathons, changing the way the world spins.

And here am I, doing the dishes, going to the grocery, taking the car in for repairs. These are the activities that occupy what seems to be an excessive percentage of my days. I don’t know how to start a foundation. What’s more, I don’t have the drive or energy to find out. I gave up running long ago, a casualty of laziness and sensitive joints. Sometimes, it’s all I can do just to put three somewhat healthy meals in my mouth in the course of a day.

Make no mistake: I have great faith and belief in the everyday work I do – teaching, writing, looking after my family – simply because I believe these activities are important, if only to me. (No one has ever accused me of lacking ego!) But always there is the nag in the back of my head who says: “Why aren’t you doing more with your life?”

It’s a never-ending trap, this idea that we should always be doing something more – that who we are and what we do is somehow never enough. The size of this trap expands exponentially once you’ve been seriously ill, the product of the idea that contemplating death imbues a life with greater meaning and therefore greater action. This trap can be as psychologically damaging as the illness itself because of the guilt attached: “I’ve survived, so surely I’m supposed to solve world hunger?”

And that’s why I’m glad to see a change in focus in the ads now broadcast by a nearby cancer treatment center. Finally, here’s an ad that dismantles the trap, that reflects the reality of most of us who survive treatment. We mow the lawn, we make toast, we sort the laundry. I don’t like the implication in this ad that cancer is now an everyday occurrence – a speed bump on the way to the grocery —  and I chafe at ads that pit a center’s survival rates in a marketing competition against others. But I am glad to see the expectations made realistic. Life after cancer is pretty much as it is beforehand — full of ordinary moments.

Five years on: What does survival mean?

December 31, 2014, was not just the last day of last year. For me, it was a significant point in my cancer journey – that landmark day that marks 5 years since the end of chemotherapy, the point at which my oncologist started the survivorship clock.

Those 5 years have brought me from a place of terror to one, I hope, of realistic adjustment to the idea that I won’t live forever and that, regardless of appearances, the only real control I have over my life is within my small realm of influence – what I choose to do or not do. I still think about having had cancer every day, sometimes throughout the day, but these thoughts echo from the back of my mind; they rarely take a position in the front.

I still occasionally wonder what I did to bring on the disease, though a recent study suggests what I’ve ultimately come to believe — that in many cases, cancer develops simply as a matter of “bad luck.” Still, although I’ve changed habits that might have led to my developing cancer, I can be prone to that same panic I felt at my initial diagnosis when some new pain shows up.

Why do the cancer gurus set the critical point to determine survival at 5 years and not some other time? After all, I know a few people who were given a clean bill of health at the 5-year mark, but later were taken from us by a recurrence of the very cancer they thought had been conquered.

Here’s what the Mayo Clinic has to say about those 5-year survival statistics, which clarifies the factors influencing survival about as much as they can be. If you want even more details, especially about those long tails in the survival curves, take a look here. And as noted in this chain of posts, lots of factors influence the choice of a 5-year time point for analyzing survival.

Whatever the reason, it’s a date to acknowledge. In my own case of triple negative breast cancer, the more critical time point seems to be 2 to 3 years after diagnosis when (statistically speaking) the cancer is more likely to recur. Although I passed that mark a while ago, the 5-year point is equally important. Besides being the cut-off for the data, this is the point when oncologists tend to turn the care of cancer patients back to their primary care doctor. So the 5-year time point also marks the end of a long-term relationship with the doctor who served as a guide and security blanket during a harrowing time of life.

Besides the legion of thoughts about survival, my diagnosis of cancer left me with the feeling that I should be doing greater things with my life — establishing a non-profit foundation, for instance, or helping to solve world hunger. But here I am, going about my days much as I did before – getting the kids to and from school, teaching writing classes, walking the dog (sometimes).

Outwardly, my life looks very much like it did before my diagnosis, and even my hair has returned to its normal state (albeit with a few more gray hairs). Inwardly, the course of my thoughts is very different. I worry more about possible health risks for my family, yes, but I am also better at recognizing the value of my work, my relationships, and even the boring minutes of the day.

In his book Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl notes that “What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person’s life at a given moment . . . Man does not simply exist but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment.” In other words, I can decide that, at this moment, what I’m doing has meaning simply because I have decided that it is meaningful. I may not be in a position to solve world hunger, but I can do what I can where I am.

Starbucks, Sins, and the Lies about Breast Cancer

I was talking yesterday with friends about the headline news that Starbucks is giving their employees free tuition to attend college.

At first glance, this seems like a fantastic move, exactly the sort of thing corporations ought to do for their low-paid employees, the ones who do the hard work that guarantees those high executive salaries.  But the fine print of the agreement divulges the lie of the headline.  The tuition certainly isn’t free, and it’s not actually being paid by Starbucks. The more we dig below the glossy surface of the story, the more this “deal” looks like a marketing ploy by Starbucks and Arizona State University. So it turns out that the initial announcement and headlines were, essentially, a lie.

And so I got to thinking, what sorts of lies lurk under the surface of the news we read about breast cancer?

When it comes to lies, there are two kinds: lies of commission and lies of omission. Lies of commission are deliberate falsehoods told to cover up the truth.  Lies of omission neglect to disclose (or maliciously withhold) information and thus reshape the truth. The Starbucks story is an example of both – a headline that gives a false impression, and a withholding of details that disclose the full picture.

When it comes to breast cancer, the lies tend to be ones of omission rather than commission, and they are not usually intended to be malicious. Part of the problem in reporting on breast cancer is that the story is too wide and deep to be covered in the space of a computer screen.

The first lie of omission is that breast cancer is one disease. To date, researchers have defined 6 major types of breast cancer. These groups are then divided into many subtypes according to hormone receptivity, cell type, and other factors. Unfortunately, the information published about breast cancer in the mainstream media implies that all women with breast cancer are in the same boat, rowing with the same oar, dealing with the same disease, which is simply not true. Most studies are done on women with hormone positive cancers, which leaves people like me (with the triple negative variety) and those with other types (inflammatory, lobular, DCIS, etc.) out of the picture. Together, we make up as much as 25% to 30% of breast cancer patients, but yet the focus of news is on the hormones.

Now, take a look at the list of risk factors for breast cancer currently available on the Mayo Clinic website. (This list has changed significantly since I first was diagnosed 5 years ago.) Mayo is a highly regarded institution, and rightfully so, but even a perusal of the solid information presented here inadvertently introduces the sin of omission.

The fourth and fifth items on the list are a family history of breast cancer (mother, sister or daughter) and a genetic mutation. But neither of these items mentions the male side of the equation – men with breast or prostate cancer.  The genetic mutations that can lead to breast cancer in women can also lead to breast and prostate cancer in men. So to focus only on female relatives is to omit the real possibility that the genetic defect can come to you through your dad.

But the bigger lie here is the impression that many breast cancers are hereditary and this lie is heightened by celebrities who are opting for preventive mastectomies. In fact, 85% to 90% of breast cancers are *not* hereditary.

This list also says nothing about breast density, even though legislation in 17 states now requires doctors to tell women that they have dense breast tissue. We now know that mammograms, already questionable as an effective means of screening, are even less effective in finding tumors in dense tissue, and there is a suggestion that dense tissue itself might be a risk factor. The controversy on this topic will continue, and Dr. Susan Love interprets the current situation well.

The list also says nothing about the use of oral contraceptives, which has been a complex and controversial topic for a long time. Some studies have found a connection between use of the pill and breast cancer; some have not. Because of the changing nature of birth control pills over the years, research on the effects is rather like shooting arrows at a moving target.  Still, the question is worth addressing, in light of a recent study.

The Mayo list does raise the issue of childbearing, another area clouded with complexity. According to the list, having children late in life or not at all is a risk factor. But the finer points of this factor are explained by the Komen Foundation as follows:

“In general, women who have given birth to more than one child have a lower risk of breast cancer than women who have never given birth. However, women may not get this protective benefit of childbearing for triple negative breast cancers. On the other hand, although having a child at a later age tends to increase the risk of breast cancer, it does not appear to increase the risk of triple negative cancers.”

So it seems this risk factor might not actually apply in many cases, and so,  out of necessity, the site concludes by saying “these topics are under active study.”

There are some unusual omissions from the Mayo list: that risk increases with height, and that cancer occurs slightly more often in the left breast than the right.

Further down the Mayo Clinic’s risk list is exposure to radiation as a treatment during childhood.  The sin of omission here concerns the radiation women are subjected to through mammography. Most of the current research still indicates that the amount of radiation from mammograms is not of concern, even cumulatively. So this omission actually works against women’s peace of mind.

With regard to risk factors, the biggest lie of omission is that any of these lists is comprehensive. (The Mayo list does at least state that many women who develop breast cancer have no known risk factors.) It’s easy to assume that, if none of these factors fit you, you’re safe.  That’s what I thought when those telltale signs showed up in me. Before my diagnosis, I had only two of the risk factors on this current list. And of the risk factors for triple negative cancer – younger age, African American heritage, genetic mutation, obesity – I have none. As a short, slender, middle-aged, white woman with no previous or family history or genetic mutation, who has eaten well and exercised for years, with normal hormonal changes and not taking HRT, I was not a likely candidate for breast cancer, much less the triple-negative variety. And I know of many other women in this same boat with me – not at obvious risk.

So here’s the obvious point:  if you’re female, you’re at risk.

Another lie is that women can prevent breast cancer through the hat trick of diet, exercise, and taking tamoxifen as a preventive, which implies that we have more control over the development of breast cancer than I believe we do. If you read only the headline and lede of this article, you’re given the impression that it’s easy — eat well, exercise, and take tamoxifen if you’re at high risk. The article never mentions that there are likely environmental and chemical influences at work, things that are out of control, things that Rachel Carson – who herself died of breast cancer — warned us of back in 1962. The organization that bears the name of her landmark book makes those environmental threats clear.

The underlying message with this disease is that it is somehow the individual’s fault if she gets cancer, that cancer is out there and it’s just up to us to figure out how to avoid it, like a pothole in the road. This continues our “do-it-yourself” and “blame the victim” ways of thinking. Although we do generally have control over how we live, there has been a constant focus on diagnosis and treatment, with more and more tips for prevention – all of which is valuable. But this approach omits a clearer focus on the causes and what we’re doing collectively, at the societal, environmental, and political levels, that leads to harm.

Medical researchers do the best they can to find the answers to our many health problems. But much of this research takes years and, because it usually takes place in hindsight, after we’ve defined the problems, it is at best always a step or two behind reality.  Despite what researchers actually do find and accomplish, when this information is brought to light by the media, it is often skewed to make headlines or garner hits on a website. The ever-increasing pressure for media to be first to the story means that the critical and often the most important news is passed over because it isn’t easily carved into the crystal of a sound bite.

To avoid the sins, whether of omission or commission, it’s up to us to read between the lines and ask what’s missing from the information published about cancer, breast cancer, and even Starbucks.

***

IF you like what you read here, follow me on my other blogs:

Firefly

The Educated Patient

And if you’re looking for coaching or editing of your own writing, you might be interested in my professional services at The Write Place.

 

 

May I Help You?

May I help you?

It’s a question we often hear – and perhaps recite – without a second thought, especially at this time of year when we try to focus on those in need. After all, what could be bad about offering help?

But oh, what a loaded question it can be. As innocuous as it seems, help is, after all, a four-letter word.

Consider the Beatles, for whom the word was a request. Or the novel, The Help, by Kathryn Stockett, in which the word is a derogatory euphemism for people.

I never thought much about what constitutes help until my cancer diagnosis. And then I thought about it a lot, because people asked that question. And so I had to figure out if I needed help, and what that help might look like.

I can’t speak for others wrestling with a similar need for help – whether it’s because of a serious illness or even a joyous event like the birth of a child. And that’s the first thing to remember about help: it is a totally individual definition and its definition is as broad and varied as the people who ask for or offer it.

As I wrestled with the changes my diagnosis brought, here’s what I found most helpful:

  • The phone call from my internist the evening after she gave me the biopsy results. She had pushed hard to get quick results (because making a patient wait 2 weeks for a confirmed diagnosis is just cruel), and was checking to see how I was doing. Her voice that night was a lifeline in the stormy sea I’d just been thrown into.
  • The guidance of the surgeon and oncologist, who led my spouse and me through the steps to decide on treatment and paced that decision so we had time to figure out the right path. They explained not just the factual medical information (most critically that breast tumors can show up almost overnight between mammograms, so I could quit feeling guilty about missing one), but also the emotional and psychological impact on both of us.
  • My spouse, who investigated the medical information, checking with colleagues for second and even third opinions. Although I try to educate myself and be self-sufficient, the brain fog created by the diagnosis kept me from being able to process what I needed to know to make good decisions. For those facing trouble, it is essential to have such support on the path, someone who can keep you moving through the necessary steps, who can check and double-check details, even down to reading dosages on the bag of chemo drugs when it’s hung at your side in the infusion center.
  • The nurses in the infusion center, whose demeanor helped keep me on an even keel.  They know the seriousness of such a diagnosis, and some wonderful tricks to alleviate side effects, but they don’t reflect sadness or despair when working among the patients. In fact, they regularly reinforced the idea that the situation was manageable.
  • Capable and reliable household help, whether a sister, a friend, or even a hired college student. The critical point is that this help must be independent enough to manage the various duties – laundry, driving kids to events, even cleaning out roof gutters – without constant direction or oversight, but not so imposing as to make you feel like you’ve been sidelined from your own life. It is difficult to find that balance, but SO helpful when it’s there. And that includes those who volunteer to bring in food.
  • The cards and notes from friends and relatives. Hokey as it may seem for the ones who send them, they are the tangible sign that I am loved and supported. I still keep my basket of cards on a table where I can see them as a reminder of this network of support. And the chains of 1000 colorful origami cranes have an honored place on the walls of our home.
  • Conversations with others further down the road of the cancer journey, for they knew what was possible and served as beacons of hope. The yoga gang in particular continues to be a network of support, but I also recall the encounters with anonymous people I met randomly while out on errands, people who recognized the telltale headscarf and compassionately spoke to me.
  • The opportunity to continue to be as productive as I could in my professional life. Though I decreased my workload, my supervisor, who had wrestled with cancer himself, encouraged me to continue working at a level that would keep me engaged so that I was still a person rather than a diagnosis.

And here’s what was NOT helpful:

  • Hearing cancer referred to as “the big C,” which only perpetuates the fear that surrounds the diagnosis. Cancer is not Voldemort (He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named). Saying the word does not bring on the disease or make it worse.
  • Being spoken to in a pathetic tone of voice (especially with the head cocked at a sympathetic angle). Concern is acceptable, compassion essential. Pity, however, has no place in the armamentarium of help.
  • Being told stories about relatives or friends who had a dire prognosis or died of cancer. Or, on the other hand, being told superficially, “Oh, you’ll be fine!” Cancer is the word used for a wide range of illnesses related to cell dysfunction, with an equally wide range of symptoms and prognoses, and no one ever knows how the story will turn out. It’s essential to help the person maintain her spirits and energy, but neither unrealistic hope nor descriptions of worst-case scenarios is helpful.

A tangent to those stories is telling the person how YOU are feeling about the situation. Someone who is blindsided by a life-altering event does not have any spare energy to help you figure out how you feel about the illness. A good guideline to prevent such a scenario is to follow the Ring Theory of kvetching, described by Susan Silk and Barry Goldman in their article in the Los Angeles Times. As they put it, “The first rule is comfort in, dump out.”

What is least helpful is any sort of help that is about your need to be helpful, rather than what the person really needs. This is not the time to prove to yourself or anyone else that you’re a good helper. If you’re someone who can offer help, be sure it’s the kind of help the person really needs, which is not necessarily the kind of help you might want to give. Help is a gift  — and gift, too, is a four-letter word. Like any gift, it should be about the person receiving it, not the one giving it.

If you’re someone who really needs to help or wants to organize help for a friend, there are several websites that can help you help someone else. Lotsa Helping Hands is just one of them.

And now, to lighten the mood, the musical closing.  Sing along if you like.

Guest Post: Sloppy Reporting Affects Too Much Cancer Writing

This month, I am re-posting an excellent blog post by Patricia Prijatel, the E.T. Meredith Distinguished Professor of Journalism Emeritus at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.  She is the author of Surviving Triple-Negative Breast Cancer, an investigation into the causes and treatments of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the type of breast cancer that we both had. The book was published in 2012 and can be found here.

This article was originally posted on Patricia’s blog, Positives About Negative, on September 8, 2013. In it, she describes how it is that media reporters misinform the public about triple-negative breast cancer and the effects of that misinformation on the public’s understanding of the disease. Although she focuses specifically on TNBC, the situation she describes is rampant in the media when it comes to health and other topics, and she calls on reporters to be precise in their reporting, to represent their topic accurately, and take responsibility for their words and the effect those words have on the audience.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Sloppy Reporting Affects Too Much Cancer Writing

By Patricia Prijatel

Reporters: Precision is especially important in health writing.  

Patients: Read carefully and learn to spot misinformation and dangerous generalizations.

I have been a journalist for 46 years, 30 of that teaching at some level. My son is a journalist, as are most of my close friends. Yet one of my biggest frustrations since my cancer diagnosis is with my own profession.

Most journalists have more of a job than they can handle right now, so I offer a few rules for them about breast cancer reporting, skewed toward information about triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), which gets especially distorted in the media. What tripped my trigger today was a story in KGW.com, a station in Portland, Oregon, but it has been an issue with The New York Times, medical journals, blogs, and just about every form of medical or health information.

1. No one type of breast cancer is THE most aggressive. Not TNBC, not Her-2 positive, not inflammatory, all of which are repeatedly given that description in outlets large and small.

Which is THE most aggressive? Plenty of all types. Even early-stage hormone-positive breast cancer can be aggressive with the wrong mix of genetics (the BRCA genetic mutation and others that researchers are still uncovering), family history, and numerous environmental, health, and lifestyle issues (insulin resistance, weight, alcohol abuse, and so on.)

Some forms of TNBC are more lethal than some forms of hormone-positive, and less lethal than other forms. And so it is with all types and subtypes.

2.  There are successful treatments for most forms of TNBC. Yet journalists easily say things such as, in the KGW.com piece, “Women with triple negative breast cancer don’t usually respond to most traditional therapies.” I honestly appreciate that qualifier, “usually.” Neverthless, the statement is inaccurate. It is true that TNBC tumors are not responsive to estrogen-altering drugs such as tamoxifen and Arimidex because the disease is not fueled by estrogen.

But TNBC responds well to typical chemotherapy—better than other forms of cancer respond, in fact. So women with TNBC usually get their drugs in the form of chemo, either before or right after surgery, rather than in five-year doses, as is the case with patients with estrogen-positive disease.

Treatment for metastatic TNBC—stage IV—remains difficult, and it is true that many of those patients do not respond to current therapies. But fewer than 10 percent of patients with TNBC have stage IV, which means that 90 percent may respond well to treatment.

So the helpful qualifier in that statement would be “Metastatic TNBC does not usually respond well to most traditional therapies.”

3. Readers internalize your words. Last week I talked to a woman who had been given an excellent prognosis from her doctor, yet still thought her outlook was grim because she read a news release saying TNBC was lethal. Communications research demonstrates this phenomenon—we’re more likely to consider media reality as the real deal instead of our own lives. Everybody lives in cool apartments and houses on TV, so you believe that to be true in real life, despite the fact that most of your friends have standard-issue digs with furnishings from WalMart. Same way with health issues. Ominous news in the media feels more accurate than your doc’s more measured approach.

4. The generalizations you use can loop around to negatively affect your readers’ and listeners’ health. I recently talked to a highly educated woman with a medical background who thought that it did not matter that her TNBC was stage 1. “Stage doesn’t matter with this disease, does it?” she asked. She was ready to give up. Of course stage matters. Stage 1 TNBC is much less aggressive than stage 4 of anything else. The great majority of women with stage 1 TNBC survive—as many as 90 percent in some studies.

Still, because she thought TNBC was automatically aggressive, she was giving up, and few battles in health or otherwise are won by giving up.

So do your research and don’t lump early stage with late stage disease. The research reported on by KGW.com was on the drug PLX2297, which may be effective against TNBC. I cannot find the research the reporter alludes to, but I did find a clinical trial for PLX3397 in connection with Eribulin for metastatic TNBC.  Metastatic is late stage. Metastatic is a much different disease from non-metastatic. Know the difference and include it in your story. It actually only takes a word.

5. Remember your vocabulary. Lethal means deadly. So if you tell me my disease is lethal, you are telling me it will kill me. Yet most women with breast cancer, including TNBC, live happy lives long after diagnosis. I have talked to a great many of them. They compete in triathlons, have babies, tend their grandchildren, get remarried, buy cottages by the ocean.

6. Get your stats straight or don’t use them. Just as all breast cancers are different, so are their prognoses. Saying that TNBC patients have “another five to eight years to live,” as KGW.com reported, is outrageous. There is no research to back this up. Most recurrences of TNBC come in the first three years, but a host of studies show that the majority of women with the disease make that marker easily and live disease-free for decades. I have interviewed countless women who are 20 years past this diagnosis. And, sadly, I have lost friends before the three-year mark. There is no one prognosis, but the reality is that most women survive beyond “five to eight” years. Don’t tell readers they’ll likely be dead in five years. Really, I have to say that?

7.  Never settle for a one-source story. This is pretty basic and is true of all journalism, but especially for health. That source could be wrong, inarticulate, promoting an agenda, or speaking in medical shorthand that the writer’s colleagues might comprehend but which may confuse or frighten their patients. Researchers naturally want to show the importance of their findings and, in so doing, could mischaracterize the seriousness of a disease. This information is too important to let one individual set the tone. At least link to organizations with a broader perspective. Numerous sites exist for accurate breast cancer information, including breastcancer.org, the Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Foundation, Living Beyond Breast Cancer, and of course, this blog.

Read more about TNBC in the book, Surviving Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

The News of the Day is Not All Bad

 

 

October 1 — and the news of the day is not encouraging:

The U.S. government is shut down because our Congress can’t seem to get along.

The websites to sign up for the new healthcare exchanges have crashed.

And our celebrities are so lazy, they can’t walk at a tourist attraction.

But, in honor of the pink month, there is some encouraging news:

  • Deaths from breast cancer in the U.S. in 1991:  43,583
  • Estimated deaths from breast cancer in the U.S. in 2013: 40,030

It may not look like much of a difference, but it’s a big deal for those 3553 people who remain alive.  Let’s celebrate what we can.

And if you’re tired of the today’s bad news and need a good laugh, check out the new story at my other blog.