Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer back in 2008. Turns out during surgery they found it was a rare, less aggressive type. For several years, I had clean scans. Then a few mets started showing up in the liver, where most mets start for folks with pancreatic cancer. But no real change in treatment (none) until 2016 when I moved and started with a new oncologist.
Things motored along with a monthly injection of a drug, until three years ago, when I underwent a targeted therapy. That worked for a year, then more mets appeared. And this spring, the tumor growth seemed to accelerate, so the oncologist started me on an oral chemotherapy.
Interestingly, through all this, I've felt generally fine, doing biking, road trips and such, while practicing a level of covid based isolation. And I have no idea what the future holds, but 14 bonus years is a real gift, considering that in July of 2008 I thought I had months to live!
My point is to enjoy the time you have, forget thoughts of "cure" versus anything else. It's not the real question, since we all have this "sword" hanging over our heads that we could be diagnosed with a fatal disease tomorrow, catch lethal covid and so forth. Think long term, and be prepared to adjust plans....
The best of luck to you sir (I just assumed you are a guy, unless you live in or visit Big Bear and you are a woman, lol!), but it’s really nice to read about someone who has beat the odds and outlived his diagnosis by quite a bit.
Just curious, but I’ve read a lot about changing your diet can be really beneficial in beating cancer. But did you try sugar and processed carb reduction at all? I’ve read where excess sugar and carbs can cause cancer to grow and become even more serious.
Did your doctors mention anything about this possible connection?
Just curious, but I’ve read a lot about changing your diet can be really beneficial in beating cancer. But did you try sugar and processed carb reduction at all? I’ve read where excess sugar and carbs can cause cancer to grow and become even more serious.
"I was told that sugar causes cancer or if you have cancer will feed the cancer cells. Is this true?"
Sugar is not a carcinogenic substance. However, over-consumption of sugar, particularly added sugars in processed beverages and foods, can contribute to obesity which is an important risk factor for cancer. There is no evidence that consuming sugar makes cancer cells grow faster or cause cancer.
The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has reviewed all available evidence to update the Australian Dietary Guidelines and concluded that consumption of sucrose is not associated with an increased risk of cancer. There was sufficient evidence to conclude that there was no association between sugars and cancer of the pancreas, bowel, breast and bladder. There was no evidence of a direct association between sugar consumption and an increased risk of cancer of any type.
Re: "Saving for the future"
The traditional wisdom is "save, save, save".
Of course, those who make a fortune from your denial of immediate use of "your" money will sagely nod their heads in agreement.
However, the fact remains that inflation and rising taxes will erode the FUTURE value of any savings / investments you accrue.
IMHO, live NOW, and don't put it off. Because when you get old enough to retire and use all those savings, you may be unpleasantly surprised by your declining capabilities and catastrophic medical expenses.
To illustrate, an old friend, who recently retired, bought a nice house in his old neighborhood. Three months later, he is found by his neighbors, collapsed at the foot of his stairs. Wakes up in the emergency room, diagnosed with COVID-19. Real bad. Physically challenged big time. Not only were the medical bills catastrophic, he was forced to file for bankruptcy and pretty much wiped out his savings. Undaunted, he got a job in local transit (he was a retired bus driver). A few months ago, he falls and breaks his hip. BAM. Back into dire straits. . . though he had some relief via medical insurance from his job. But he's collecting unemployment, and is pretty much housebound, needing a cane to wobble around.
He's not sure he can ever return to driving, with a bum leg. And he's pretty much tapped out, financially.
Another instance is a dear correspondent, who wound up with kidney damage from the side effects of a heart medication. She's on dialysis, and recently exhausted her private insurance. So she had to go on Medicaid to keep getting dialysis. She's on a waiting list for a new kidney, but that's a long shot. She's living low on the possum, as they say. Her savings were wiped out, too.
My maternal grandmother lived "large" and died penniless. . . heirs got nothing. Was she "smart" or not?
"I was told that sugar causes cancer or if you have cancer will feed the cancer cells. Is this true?"
Sugar is not a carcinogenic substance. However, over-consumption of sugar, particularly added sugars in processed beverages and foods, can contribute to obesity which is an important risk factor for cancer. There is no evidence that consuming sugar makes cancer cells grow faster or cause cancer.
The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has reviewed all available evidence to update the Australian Dietary Guidelines and concluded that consumption of sucrose is not associated with an increased risk of cancer. There was sufficient evidence to conclude that there was no association between sugars and cancer of the pancreas, bowel, breast and bladder. There was no evidence of a direct association between sugar consumption and an increased risk of cancer of any type.
I have many such citations because people keep spreading the sugar-feeds-cancer misinformation.
I certainly hope not.
I think this idea comes from the fact that when you get a PET scan, they inject you with a sugar-based dye, because cancer cells take up more energy than healthy cells. This way the cancerous areas light up on the PET scan because they've taken up more of the sugar dye. They gave me a copy of my bf's PET scan on a CD right after the scan. I wasn't sure what I was going to be looking at, so I looked it up before I looked at the scan, and sure enough, I saw two bright spots on the opposite side of the chest from where the tumor in his lung was known to be.
When we went to see the doctor, I mentioned it before she did, and she looked at me and said, "Very good! The cancer is in two lymph nodes in his chest on the opposite side of the affected lung." (There was also another in a neck lymph node, which I missed. The PET scan looks to me like the Shroud of Turin.)
Anyway, I think the idea that the cancer takes up the sugar dye is the basis of believing that "sugar feeds cancer". My bf sucks down Pepsi all day long, but he has declined treatment or further scans (the cancer is incurable, they wanted to experiment with some oral chemo to see if it would slow the cancer down) and it's been ten months since that PET scan. He still has no pain or cough from the lung cancer, although we know it will get him eventually.
I think this idea comes from the fact that when you get a PET scan, they inject you with a sugar-based dye, because cancer cells take up more energy than healthy cells. This way the cancerous areas light up on the PET scan because they've taken up more of the sugar dye. They gave me a copy of my bf's PET scan on a CD right after the scan. I wasn't sure what I was going to be looking at, so I looked it up before I looked at the scan, and sure enough, I saw two bright spots on the opposite side of the chest from where the tumor in his lung was known to be.
When we went to see the doctor, I mentioned it before she did, and she looked at me and said, "Very good! The cancer is in two lymph nodes in his chest on the opposite side of the affected lung." (There was also another in a neck lymph node, which I missed. The PET scan looks to me like the Shroud of Turin.)
Anyway, I think the idea that the cancer takes up the sugar dye is the basis of believing that "sugar feeds cancer". My bf sucks down Pepsi all day long, but he has declined treatment or further scans (the cancer is incurable, they wanted to experiment with some oral chemo to see if it would slow the cancer down) and it's been ten months since that PET scan. He still has no pain or cough from the lung cancer, although we know it will get him eventually.
My opinion is he made the right choice.
My MIL was 84 when they wanted to do chemo. What's "funny" is a few years before they told her no chemo because it could kill her, now for some reason chemo wouldn't kill her? I may be blond but I'm far from dumb. According to what I'd read online, the doctors want healthy older people like her to see what chemo will do because people didn't live this long as healthy as she was.
She saw 3 doctors, they all agreed about chemo. I was very against it, made it known to my hub and his sister saying quality over quantity. Well, she ended up taking the chemo and unfortunately, I was right. She landed in the ER that night, straight to hospice, bedridden to wait to die. She was walking and driving before that chemo.
That was Thanksgiving Monday, so my hub drove out to Ohio, spent Thanksgiving with her. Brought her beloved dog. She couldn't even walk to the bathroom. She lasted until January, a few weeks shy of her 85th birthday.
I doubt the chemo is the same, your man has so many cards stacked against him. My hub had chemo which is probably the same one they would have used for his oral cancer, Cisplatin IIRC. From what I've researched, if my hubs oral cancer came back it would go to his lungs or brain next. Thankfully it didn't return. The chemo kicked his butt. He didn't even get a full dose. He was in pretty decent shape before the chemo, even drove until he had chemo. He was in bed for days. Very sick too, throwing up. They gave him a strong pill for nausea, that helped some. From what you've shared of his "quality of life" I can't see him doing chemo with the various side effects.
Anyway, I just wanted to say I think he made the right decision and explain why I thought so. Hopefully "you" (not you personally, but family or friends) do not second guess his decision.
My MIL was 84 when they wanted to do chemo. What's "funny" is a few years before they told her no chemo because it could kill her, now for some reason chemo wouldn't kill her? I may be blond but I'm far from dumb. According to what I'd read online, the doctors want healthy older people like her to see what chemo will do because people didn't live this long as healthy as she was.
She saw 3 doctors, they all agreed about chemo. I was very against it, made it known to my hub and his sister saying quality over quantity. Well, she ended up taking the chemo and unfortunately, I was right. She landed in the ER that night, straight to hospice, bedridden to wait to die. She was walking and driving before that chemo.
That was Thanksgiving Monday, so my hub drove out to Ohio, spent Thanksgiving with her. Brought her beloved dog. She couldn't even walk to the bathroom. She lasted until January, a few weeks shy of her 85th birthday.
I doubt the chemo is the same, your man has so many cards stacked against him. My hub had chemo which is probably the same one they would have used for his oral cancer, Cisplatin IIRC. From what I've researched, if my hubs oral cancer came back it would go to his lungs or brain next. Thankfully it didn't return. The chemo kicked his butt. He didn't even get a full dose. He was in pretty decent shape before the chemo, even drove until he had chemo. He was in bed for days. Very sick too, throwing up. They gave him a strong pill for nausea, that helped some. From what you've shared of his "quality of life" I can't see him doing chemo with the various side effects.
Anyway, I just wanted to say I think he made the right decision and explain why I thought so. Hopefully "you" (not you personally, but family or friends) do not second guess his decision.
No, no one will override his decision. His body has crapped out because of the paraneoplastic syndrome, but his mind is still good and his sons know he's still in charge. One of them did kind of want him to try the chemo, but he has backed off. I think he was hoping treatment might reverse the paraneoplastic syndrome, but it won't. The Purkinje cells in the cerebellum cannot be restored once destroyed.
Besides that, I looked into the two drugs they wanted to give him. One is usually used for brain cancer, the other for ovarian cancer. He has a neuroendocrine tumor in his lung, an unusual type of lung cancer. It may have been there for a long time already. It was obvious that these doctors were interested in using him for a guinea pig to see what would happen. They said it would not cure the cancer, but they wanted to see if the drugs would slow it down. When I asked what happens if he doesn't get any treatment, they sort of stammered that they didn't really know, it could grow fast, it could grow slow, it could grow fast at some times and slow at others...in other words, they have no frikken idea and just want to see if these drugs have any effect, and that he would have to go get regular scans and blood tests so they could monitor it. He said NO, and I said I would stand by whatever decision he chose.
No, no one will override his decision. His body has crapped out because of the paraneoplastic syndrome, but his mind is still good and his sons know he's still in charge. One of them did kind of want him to try the chemo, but he has backed off. I think he was hoping treatment might reverse the paraneoplastic syndrome, but it won't. The Purkinje cells in the cerebellum cannot be restored once destroyed.
Besides that, I looked into the two drugs they wanted to give him. One is usually used for brain cancer, the other for ovarian cancer. He has a neuroendocrine tumor in his lung, an unusual type of lung cancer. It may have been there for a long time already. It was obvious that these doctors were interested in using him for a guinea pig to see what would happen. They said it would not cure the cancer, but they wanted to see if the drugs would slow it down. When I asked what happens if he doesn't get any treatment, they sort of stammered that they didn't really know, it could grow fast, it could grow slow, it could grow fast at some times and slow at others...in other words, they have no frikken idea and just want to see if these drugs have any effect, and that he would have to go get regular scans and blood tests so they could monitor it. He said NO, and I said I would stand by whatever decision he chose.
He's very lucky you're asking questions. Unreal what these cancer doctors are willing to do.
Don't forget that every patient is a unique individual and poses unique challenges. What one chemo specific drug or regimen does to one may NOT do to another. All regimens can be tailored to the patient, but it often takes the first round to determine what that person can tolerate. An oncologist suggesting any course of treatment can only make an educated guess what will happen. In its broadest sense, "chemo" could be anything from oral vitamin C to a seriously cytotoxic antibiotic like adriamycin. Either one could kill under the right circumstances, and neither could (says this survivor of adriamycin therapy).
Am I suggesting the patient shouldn't question their MD? Of course not! They're supposed to be approaching treatment decisions as a team, not adversaries. If there's no trust, no one wins.
Don't forget that every patient is a unique individual and poses unique challenges. What one chemo specific drug or regimen does to one may NOT do to another. All regimens can be tailored to the patient, but it often takes the first round to determine what that person can tolerate. An oncologist suggesting any course of treatment can only make an educated guess what will happen. In its broadest sense, "chemo" could be anything from oral vitamin C to a seriously cytotoxic antibiotic like adriamycin. Either one could kill under the right circumstances, and neither could (says this survivor of adriamycin therapy).
Am I suggesting the patient shouldn't question their MD? Of course not! They're supposed to be approaching treatment decisions as a team, not adversaries. If there's no trust, no one wins.
Well, that was exactly the case. Paraneoplastic syndromes only occur in one in 10K patients, and the neuroendocrine tumor my S.O. has is an unusual type of cancer to be found in the lung. They wanted to try two oral chemos used for brain and ovarian cancer BECAUSE there was no protocol for treating this type of cancer, and they were upfront that there was no cure expected, but perhaps a slowing of the cancer growth. The side effects were harsh, however, which they were also upfront about, and he would require regular scans, which he hates.
In light of the fact that he is already irreversibly incapacitated because of the paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration, and the bottom line is that the cancer can't be cured anyway, it wasn't worth it to him to suffer the side effects on the off-chance that a cancer he would still have no idea is even there if not for the immune system reaction that crippled him "might" slow down. For what?
I do understand that they were interested in learning by what his body's response would be, and if he had said "Yes, use my body for a learning tool", I would have backed him. But he said no. Even if by some miracle they cured the cancer, his life would not change. He'd still be as incapacitated as he is now.
Now if they thought they could treat the paraneoplastic syndrome, I think his answer might have been different, but it's pretty much a given that its irreversible, and it's probably too rare for anyone to be bothered to try to find a reversal anyway.
"Learning Tool"? I presume that's your term. Ethically, a physician can't administer a drug to "see what happens" without having a clinical trial protocol approved by the Institutional Review Board of the hospital. And that requires that there be some hope of benefit for the patient. (yes, I've had IRB training over the years...)
It's true that there are no guarantees in the use of drugs, but it's not true that a doc can just randomly administer a chemotherapy drug just to "see what happens". That would be malpractice and probably an IRB violation, and the doc would be risking license suspension as a minimum.
Uncontrolled, unapproved human experimentation went out in the aftermath of WWII and other problems over the years.
A side note: traditionally, "chemotherapy" refers to relatively non-specific cytotoxic drugs - drugs that kill any fast growing cell. Lay people may use the term to refer to any cancer therapy, but medical professionals usually won't. We also have targeted therapies that aren't cytotoxic to all cells. There's a variety of terms used for these, such as hormonal treatments, antibody treatments, checkpoint inhibitors and so forth. Each group of targeted therapies works on a different subset of cancers, and has it's own set of patient management issues, in contrast to classical chemotherapy, which as a group have many common patient management issues.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
