Tag Archives: Breast Cancer Awareness

Our Feel-Good War on Breast Cancer: Who Will Listen?

Patrick Hamilton/Newspix/Getty Images; Matt Born/The Star-News, via Associated Press; Gabrielle Plucknette/The New York Times; Sharpie, via Associated Press; U.S. Postal Service, via Associated Press.

Peggy Orenstein’s NYT Magazine article,  “Our Feel-Good War on Breast Cancer,”  is generating a lot of commentary on Twitter and various message boards.I summarized the article and offered some commentary on the MBCN blog. But I still have a few more things to say.

As Orenstein’s article demonstrates, breast cancer is complex disease. Here are some quick thoughts about breast cancer and screening:

I’m grateful the New York Times provided Orenstein with a platform to tell her story. The article’s run length is both intimidating (about 6,500 words) and frankly amazing (with today’s anemic ad revenues most journalists are routinely expected to perform the print equivalent of inscribing The Lord’s Prayer on a grain of rice).

It bothers me, however, that many of the messages in Orenstein’s aren’t new. They have  just never attained the same level of discussion. Consider Musa Mayer’s 2011 NBCC presentation “Theories of Metastasis“:

Mayer wondered why very few advocates focus on MBC. She offered the following theories:

  • Avoidance: Vast majority of advocates are primary breast cancer survivors at risk of recurrence: “We are what the pink crowd wants to forget because we are the painful reminders of what can happen.”
  • Expertise required: Lack of knowledge about complex MBC treatments and the different issues that women with MBC face
  • Lack of data: Incidence and prevalence of MBC unknown, so basic tools for advocacy are missing
  • Screening and early detection still a primary focus
  • Naïvete and fatalism both play a role
Musa's Mayers "Theories on Metastasis: Innovative Thinking, An Advocacy Perspective" can be downloaded at http://advancedbc.org/file/Mayer_NBCC_2011_0.pdf

Musa’s Mayers “Theories on Metastasis: Innovative
Thinking, An Advocacy Perspective” can be downloaded at http://advancedbc.org/file/Mayer_NBCC_2011_0.pdf

Dr. Gilbert Welch’s 2012 NTY Op-Ed piece, “Cancer Survivor or Victim of Over Diagnosis”  also covers much of the same ground as Orenstein’s 2013 article, and, indeed, Welch is prominently featured in Orenstein’s article.

Welch’s article ran on November 21, 2012. Did you read it? Did you share it on Facebook and Twitter? I know I didn’t. Yet when Orenstein reiterates many of Welch’s points lo these five months later, suddenly this same information is more compelling.

One of Orenstein’s central tenets is that early detection is not a breast cancer cure. That’s been said before here, here and here and I’m sure countless other places. In my own writing, I have frequently cited The National Breast Cancer Coalition’s 31 Myth and Truths.  Here is an excerpt from NBCC’s Myth #2:

…evidence shows that in the United States, it has been estimated that a woman’s cumulative risk for a false-positive result after ten mammograms is almost 50 percent; the risk of undergoing an unnecessary biopsy is almost 20 percent. In addition, women who are screened with mammography often have more aggressive and unneeded treatments. It is estimated that mammography screening has increased the number of mastectomies by 20 percent and the number of mastectomies and lumpectomies combined by 30 percent.

Women are regularly told that screening mammograms save lives. Evidence of actual mortality reduction is, in fact, conflicting and continues to be questioned by scientists, policy makers and members of the public. Since evidence does not currently significantly support, nor disprove the effectiveness of this test, receiving a screening mammogram should be a personal choice, not a medical mandate.

It’s also instructive to note what this 2009  NYT Op-Ed piece said:

Screening turns up lots of tiny abnormalities that are either not cancer or are slow-growing cancers that would never progress to the point of killing a woman and might not even become known to her…The scientific argument is that it is not worth taking such risks for the large number of women whose cancers grow too slowly to kill them. But it is difficult, in practice, to apply that kind of scientific analysis to the immediate questions confronting a woman and her doctor when a mammogram turns up an abnormality. The only real solution will come when researchers find a way to distinguish the dangerous, aggressive tumors that need to be excised from the more languorous ones that do not.

If you’ve read Orenstein’s current article, that last part will certainly sound familiar.

Orenstein’s 2013 article reminds us  that metastatic breast cancer research receives scant funding, noting that “only an estimated .5 percent of all National Cancer Institute grants since 1972 focus on metastasis.”

That point previously was made in Roni Caryn Rabin’s 2011 NYT story: “A Pink Ribbon Race Years Long”:

Since it is metastasis that ultimately kills, some advocates want more resources devoted to its study and treatment. Even though many cancer drugs are initially tested on patients with advanced disease, Danny Welch, an expert on metastasis, says only a few hundred scientists in the world are trying to understand the process. “It’s responsible for 90 percent of the morbidity and mortality, but gets less than 5 percent of the budget,” said Dr. Welch…

And Mayer, in her 2011 presentation says the same thing. She offers a pie chart from Science Daily, as well as this pull quote:

“Although there is considerable variation, the median spent on metastasis research is around 5% of total cancer research funding. Is this sufficient?” Jonathan Sleeman, Patricia S. Steeg, “Cancer metastasis as a therapeutic target,” European Journal of Cancer 46 ( 2010) 1177–1180 (free full text).

To paraphrase Yogi Berra, it’s deja vu all over again, isn’t it? Well, perhaps if we say it  loud enough and long enough people will start listening.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Help Wanted: Where is Our Metastatic Breast Cancer Celebrity Spokesperson?

You know what’s weird about metastatic breast cancer? It has no celebrity spokespeople.

Well, we sort of have one. Actress Marcia Strassman, best known for playing Gabe Kaplan’s wife on “Welcome Back Kotter,” has spoken about having metastatic breast cancer. Strassman presented with bone mets in 2007. Just as a First Lady or a Miss America Pageant contestant advances a particular cause or platform, so, too, does Marcia Strassman. She encourages medical compliance–specifically Novartis pays Strassman to talk about her experience with Zometa and why it is important to get these bisphosphonate infusions every 28 days (or as one oncologist recommends).

Those who don’t have metastatic breast cancer may be more familiar with another bisphosphonate: Boniva. You’ve probably seen the commercial starring Gidget aka Sally Field.  As Consumer Reports says, “Great Spokeswoman, Misleading Ad: … [the convenience Field touts] comes at a price—it can set you back about 10 times the cost of the similar drug alendronate (the generic version of Fosamax). No wonder Boniva’s backers, Roche and GlaxoSmithKline can afford to invest in a big-name celebrity to pitch it. Interestingly, studies don’t show that Boniva is any more effective than other bisphosphonates.”

You can see why we metsers might feel a little slighted. Everyone else get Sally Field urging them to get their bone boosters. And we get….Mrs. Kotter.

Beyond Marcia Strassman, who concedes she is not “a huge celebrity,” we don’t have any nationally known people with metastatic breast cancer speaking on our behalf.

Maybe we should count our blessings.

Sheryl Crowe had a lumpectomy and 7 weeks of radiation. She says her cancer was caught in the “earliest of stages…I am a walking advertisement for early detection. ” On a national television appearance Crowe implied there’s a connection between drinking water in plastic bottles left in a car and exposed to the sun’s heat and getting breast cancer. Although Crowe didn’t specifically suggest that’s why she herself got cancer, many viewers made that assumption. But as this report notes:  Dr. Rolf Halden of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health [says] consumers face a much greater risk from potential exposure to microbial contaminants in bottled water — germs, to you and me — than from chemical ones. For that reason, most experts suggest not refilling or reusing empty bottles.

In 2012, Crowe announced she had a noncancerous brain tumor (i.e, a meningioma ). Crowe theorized her cell phone may have led to the tumor. Science writer Benjamin Radford refutes this notion: “While concern over the potential harm of cell phones is widespread, the vast majority of scientific research does not support the idea that cell phones are dangerous,”says Radford. “Repeated scientific studies have failed to find good evidence supporting the position that EMFs or cell phones damage human health.”

Crowe has shown her power to reach millions. But she doesn’t seem to be the best informed spokesperson.

In 2008, actress Christina Applegate, then 36 years old, had a double mastectomy after testing positive for the BRCA1 mutation. Applegate, the daughter of a breast cancer survivor, had been getting mammograms since she was 30 years old.  “My doctor said that the mammograms weren’t enough for me because of the denseness of my breasts,” Applegate told Oprah Winfrey in 2008. “He suggested that I get an MRI.”

According to this article: [Applegate] learned early detection may not come from a mammogram. Christina says she will fight for women to have access to MRIs and genetic testing, which many insurance companies won’t pay for.

This is certainly a worthy message and one that is championed at www.areyoudense.org and FORCE (“fighting heridiatry breast and ovarian cancer”).
So far, so good. But Applegate also said she was cured: “[I’m] absolutely 100 per cent clear and clean,” Applegate said on a 2008 GMA appearance. “It did not spread. They got everything out, so I’m definitely not going to die from breast cancer.”

Ooops. . . ACS’ Dr. Len Lichtenfeld noted we don’t know the specifics of  Applegate’s disease. “Breast cancer, in fact, is a life long disease,” wrote Dr. Lichtenfeld. “That’s what many women live with every day…The medical facts are that bilateral mastectomies as a treatment for breast cancer are not a cure, especially in BRCA positive women.   They are the best strategy we have to reduce the risk of another breast cancer in the opposite breast, but they don’t remove risk completely.  Even in the hands of the best surgeons, bilateral mastectomies in a BRCA positive woman who has not had breast cancer reduces the risk of a new primary breast cancer to about 10%.  That’s because even in the best surgical hands, there is still some breast tissue left behind after these procedures.”

In 2004, singer Melissa Etheridge was diagnosed with Stage 2 breast cancer. Etheridge had a lumpectomy, but the surgeons also had to remove 15 lymph nodes to make sure the cancer hadn’t spread. She then went through five rounds of chemotherapy and radiation.

More magazine recently asked Etheridge what about the key to a breast cancer cure–what needs to happen?  “I have a very strong belief that this cure that we’re looking for is inside us,” Etheridge responded. “That cancer is just a symptom of our bodies being out of balance and the cure is to understand health. It’s to understand our bodies and our spirits—our souls—better. That’s the cure.”

Thank you, Melissa, don’t call us. We’ll call you…

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Highlights from MBCN’s 2012 Chicago Conference on Metastatic Breast Cancer

Canadian friends Penny Overes, Catherine Spencer and
Danielle Smith were among the 200+ attendees. Alberta represent!

MBCN’s 6th Annual National Conference (“Moving Forward With Metastatic Breast Cancer,”) took place Oct. 13, 2012 at Northwestern’s Lurie Cancer Center in Chicago. In a few weeks, videos and presentation handouts will be posted at MBCN.org. In the interim, here are some highlights from selected breakout sessions, from attendee Pam Breakey. Pam is a long-time participant on the BC.Mets.org site and, as you will see, takes wonderful notes.
Part One: General Sessions

Part Two: Selected Breakout Sessions

We were honored to have Medical Lessons blogger and Atlantic correspondent  Elaine Schattner join us. Dr. Schattner is a trained oncol­ogist, hema­tol­ogist, medical edu­cator and jour­nalist who writes and speaks on med­icine. Her views on health care are informed by her expe­ri­ences as a patient with sco­l­iosis since childhood and other con­di­tions including breast cancer. Her work has appeared in Slate, the New York Times, Sci­en­tific American, Cure Mag­azine and the New York Observer. Read  her great article for the Atlantic here.

MBCN Honors Dr. Pat Steeg’s Dedication to Metastatic Research With the Ellen Moskowitz and Suzanne Hebert Leadership Grant Award

MBCN board member Shirley Mertz presented the award to Dr. Pat Steeg.

In other conference news, MBCN presented Dr. Patricia Steeg with the Ellen Moskowitz and Suzanne Hebert Leadership Grant Award. “For the last 20 years, in her laboratory at the National Cancer Institute, in Bethesda, Maryland, Dr. Patricia Steeg has been researching how cancer cells from the primary tumor in the breast travel to vital organs, in particular the brain,” said Shirley Mertz, MBCN board member and prominent patient advocate. “Dr. Steeg identified the first cancer suppressor gene and has done pioneering work on brain metastasis. Although metastatic research is difficult and involves long and complex experiments, Dr. Steeg remains undeterred. She exerts strong leadership in the research community nationally and internationally.”

Prior to accepting the award, Steeg gave a presentation on “Research on Treatment to Contain Metastatic Growth.” The researcher made a case for redesigning clinical trials to do what she termed “phase II randomized metastasis-prevention trials.” Currently, phase I and phase II clinical trials are done in patients with advanced, refractory metastatic cancer, patients who have had many therapies. In phase II trials,
researchers typically are trying to determine if a drug shrinks metastases.
“But a drug that prevents metastasis may not shrink a large, refractory tumor,” said Steeg. “It has a different mechanism of action that is not picked up by the clinical trial system.” Steeg referenced a
perspective piece, “The Right Trials,” she wrote for Nature this past May.

“The proposal I’ve put forth should apply to a number of different cancers, particularly those where the majority of patients are diagnosed before they have full-blown metastatic disease, or if they have limited, treatable metastatic disease,” Steeg told NCI Cancer Bulletin this past June. “One could imagine applying this to prostate, bladder, and colon cancers.”

Don’t Miss These Awesome Photos:

But wait! There’s more! Awesome conference photographs, courtesy of Ellen Averick Schor are Here.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MBC: ‘A Constant State of Hopeful Dread’

Here is a post I wrote last October for AZ Connections:

At a 2009 breast cancer seminar, I met two MBCN volunteers: Joani Gudeman and Shirley Mertz. I had never met another person with metastatic breast cancer. Joani and Shirley made me feel less alone. Their activism inspired me.

In 2008, Shirley and her fellow volunteer Susan Davis launched MBCN’s drive to formally establish October 13 as National Metastatic Breast Cancer Awareness Day. In October 2009, they succeeded: The Senate and House each unanimously passed a resolution to support that designation.

“It is critical to the thousands suffering from Stage 4 illness and to the general public that the voices of metastatic breast cancer patients be heard,” wrote Joani.

I would like to add my voice to that chorus.

I will never forget the day in 2009 when I found out I was of one of 155,000 US people living with metastatic breast cancer.

The oncologist said my breast cancer had spread to my lumbar vertebrae:  “Hopefully the disease will remain under control for a long time although an ultimate cure is probably unattainable.”

You know how when you are going up in an elevator and sometimes it feels like the floor is dropping out from beneath your feet? That feeling lingered with me for weeks.

My cancer center’s library had two shelves of breast cancer pamphlets, mostly for women with early stage disease. One had chapters such as “Why You Should Get Prompt Attention,” and “Not All Lumps Are Cancer.”

Not very helpful to my particular situation.

I kept hunting through the shelves, the oncologic equivalent of Goldilocks sampling each bear’s porridge. Finally, I found a brochure that was just right: “Diagnosis: Metastatic Breast Cancer…What Does It Mean For You?”

This slim MBCN brochure promised “up-to-date facts — demonstrating that today, more women and men with metastatic breast cancer are living longer, productive lives.”

The brochure featured 15 questions and answers about metastatic breast cancer. Question No. 1 was: “Am I going to die?”

That cold and unspoken fear had permeated every cranny of my being for weeks.

“Though you may be concerned by statistics you have heard, keep in mind that every individual is unique,” advised the MBCN brochure. “Because statistics are based on the general population, they do not reflect the experience of any one individual. Each person brings to the table a unique set of characteristics that influence her or his experience with breast cancer. In addition, no really accurate statistics predicting survival for metastatic breast cancer patients are available today.”

Those few sentences gave me a lot of hope.

It’s been two years since my diagnosis. My treatment has been mild and I am very fortunate to be stable. But it’s a strange existence. The late Susan Davis, a tireless volunteer with the MBCN, said it best. Susan lived with mets for almost a dozen years. Although she endured progressively more grueling treatments, she said ultimately even the harshest side effects weren’t as difficult as the mental fight.

“I live in a constant state of hopeful dread,” she wrote. “I am hopeful I will be stable. I dread that my next test will show I am not.”

My mother died from inflammatory breast cancer a few weeks after I graduated from high school. Mom had no support group and practically no resources to cope with this rare disease. I have learned so much from other patients. I am grateful to have instant access to them via the Internet. Volunteering with the Metastatic Breast Cancer Network and other advocacy groups is very important to me. I want to help other patients and their families. I want the general public to be better informed about this disease. I want to make a difference.

The best thing you can do for someone with metastatic breast cancer is to be there for them—not just when they are first diagnosed, but for the long haul.

“I hate when people feel sorry for me and give me that look,” says one of my friends who has metastatic breast cancer. “We don’t have to talk about cancer all the time. Normalcy is great! I am still here—with hair or even bald. I’m here. Some days are harder than others, but I try to live as much as possible

Tagged , , , , ,

Why Are You Doing This?

My mom had inflammatory breast cancer. She died in 1983.

The other night I participated in a free WEGO Health webinar: “Navigating Your Health Narrative.” Lisa Emrich, (MS and RA); and Jenni Prokopy, fibromyalgia; and WEGO’s Amanda Dolan offered tips for better health blogging. One basic question any health blogger should ask is “Why am I doing this?”

To paraphrase George Mallory: Because I am here.

Recently a schoolmate posted our first grade class portrait on Facebook. As I studied the faces, distant memories drifted back: Tom’s theft of my Husky red pencil; Scott’s thwarted attempt to cheat on a test and Fred’s pre-luncheon ritual of sitting on his daily baloney sandwich prior to unwrapping it.

What would they remember about me? Probably that I seldom spoke. I was very shy, a situation compounded by being one of three children born in the same year. (I have a twin brother and one who is not quite a year older.)

I used to have a defaced picture of The Haymarket Riot from my sister’s history book. Her friend replaced “Haymarket Riot” with “The O’Brien Family at Dinner Time.” It wasn’t far off the mark. Dinners at our house were raucous gatherings, with everyone competing for their share of attention and food. (Not necessarily in that order.)

Since two of my five brothers were in my class, I had no school news to impart–they always beat me to it. Most of the time I just enjoyed listening to everyone else. I was in awe of my older brothers and my sister. They were bigger, smarter and burdened with the task of setting good examples.

As a World War II and Korean vet, my father was old school all the way. In the early 1970s, hippies were still commonplace. So we heard a lot of anti-mope rants. (“Mope,” “dolt” and “chowderhead” formed my father’s great triumvirate of insults.)

Occasionally, my father would solicit my opinion. Inevitably, my twin, Kevin, would respond for me. “Do you mind?” my father would say, shushing him and signaling for general silence. “I am attempting to talk to your sister. Now, what do you have to say, Kathy?”

I was embarrassed to be singled out. I spoke softly and briefly. At school this often prompted the teacher to say: “Class, could anyone hear that? I didn’t think so. Now let’s hear that again, Kathy, and this time speak up.”

I was quiet like my mother but certainly not as self-effacing. If I was modest it was only because I was too timid to toot my own horn. In spirit, if not in deed, I was like my father–a bit of an intellectual show-off.

“It amused her that our ways were quite opposite,” my father wrote shortly after my mother died. “When I did [something] it would be followed by a detailed commentary on the difficulties of the task and the discomforts I had endured and the magnitude of what I had accomplished and its lasting value.”

If my father painted the back door he would tell my mother it would probably cause an immediate rise in neighborhood property values and make the door itself a place of pilgrimage for connoisseurs of well-painted doors who would come from afar to admire the genius of its brushwork.

“At such times the fond patient eye would fall upon me with a satirical look,” my father recalled. “Puffing out her cheeks to simulate the contours of the Irish face as it pleased her to display them, she would frown importantly and march up and down pointing to herself. My venture into pomposity and egotism would end, like so many of its predecessors, in delighted laughter.”

My mother was diagnosed with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) in 1981. IBC accounts for between 1 to 5 percent of all U.S. breast cancer cases–NIH classifies it as a rare disease. Although some small progress has been made since my mother died almost 30 years ago, it remains the most aggressive type of breast cancer.

It is estimated that between 1% and 5% of all newly diagnosed breast cancers each year present as IBC; because of its rarity, it is listed with the Office of Rare Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.[1] While the number of cases of IBC is relatively small compared with the overall number of breast cancers, it is still a substantial number compared with many other rare tumor types…We cannot use the small number of cases as an excuse for the lack of clinical trials; rather, we should view it as a mandate for making novel treatment strategies available to all patients with this diagnosis.

via Have We Made Progress in Inflammatory Breast Cancer? Not So Fast – Cancer Network.

IBC patients’ median ages range between 45 and 55 years old. It occurs more frequently and at a younger age in African Americans vs. Caucasians. (See Inflammatory Breast Cancer Foundation – What is IBC? as well as IBC Support.)

I was 15 when my mother was diagnosed with IBC. Unlike other breast cancers, IBC typically does not present with a lump. The breast often looks swollen or red, a change that sometimes can happen overnight.

My mother’s treatment began with a mastectomy in our community hospital. In hindsight, I don’t know why my mother didn’t go to a university hospital–I can’t believe her small town surgeon would have seen many cases of IBC or even garden variety breast cancer for that matter. My parents went to the Mayo Clinic for a consultation. No one in our family had cancer. We didn’t know anyone with cancer. If you had a serious health crisis, everyone knew the Mayo Clinic was THE place to go.

But even the Mayo Brothers were no match for a disease where the five-year median survival rate is approximately 40 percent today. (It was worse in the 1980s. Today, IBC has a three-year survival rate of 42 % vs. 85% for non-IBC disease.)

Although 3-year survival from IBC has improved from 32% in 1975-1979 to 42% in 1988-1992 from the use of combined treatment modalities, women with IBC still have far worse survival than those with other types of breast cancer (all stages and non-IBC histopathological types combined [had a] 3-year survival [of] 85% in 1988-1992)
Source: http://www.ibcresearch.org/research/

From the community hospital, my mother went on to Lake Forest Hospital for in-patient chemotherapy. My older siblings were away at college leaving only my father two brothers and me to visit my mother in Lake Forest and remark on the amenities offered in a rich person’s hospital. (Mothers recuperating from blessed events could order lobster and there was a grand piano by the flight of stairs that led to the maternity ward.)

I hated going to visit my mother there. The nurse’s station had stern notices warning visitors against sitting on vacant beds. As we walked down the hall we would sometimes hear retching or terrible groans emanating from other patients’ rooms.

Our travels also took us to Lutheran General and Northwestern. I can’t remember where my mom had radiation–maybe at Lutheran General. There was a nurse she really liked at Northwestern–a very friendly young woman.

My father went to some of my mom’s appointments, especially if she were trying something new or meeting a new doctor. But most of the time my mother, who didn’t drive, asked which ever child was with her to remain in the waiting room while she saw the doctor.

My family in August, 1975. Nulliparity obviously wasn't a problem.

Oncology regimens have improved dramatically since the early 1980s. In my recollection, my mom’s treatments were on par with Civil War battlefield amputations. I think she had a radical mastectomy–which is no longer done. Today’s anti-emetics didn’t exist–my mom would throw up for days when she was having chemo. Later, when she had radiation, her skin was broken and oozing and her back–either because it was burned or itching or both–was a constant torment.

When I went for radiation treatments last year, I was terrified. I remembered my mother’s agony, how she would beg us to rub her back and how we did it so often for so long that we eventually rubbed a huge hole in the old navy blue cardigan she used to wear.

Thankfully, I suffered no side effects from surgery, radiation or other treatment. (I don’t have IBC, I have run-of-the-mill ER/PR+ HER2 NEU- breast cancer with a low volume of bone mets.)

In those pre-Internet days, there was literally nothing for women with IBC or MBC. General breast cancer information was restricted to large libraries or a few pamphlets from the cancer circuit rider AKA an American Cancer Society volunteer.

“In the mid-1970s, breast cancer was perceived very differently than it is today,” writes Barron H. Lerner. “There was no National Breast Cancer Coalition or Race for the Cure that encouraged women to talk about, and raise funds to control, the disease. Indeed, it was only in 1974 that breast cancer came out of the closet, with the highly public diagnoses of First Lady Betty Ford and Happy Rockefeller, wife of vice-president-designate Nelson Rockefeller. “

In the early 1980s, breast cancer was not daytime television fodder. “Mastectomy” was not a topic Merv Griffin, Mike Douglas, Phil Donahue or Judge Wapner broached. But in the early 1980s, it seems we had a perfect storm of launch vehicles for breast cancer awareness: Susan G. Komen for the Cure was founded (1982); Lifetime TV went on the air (also in 1982); and Oprah made her nationwide debut (1986).

You know what need now? How a little less awareness and a whole lot more UNDERSTANDING? Most breast cancer stories in print and on television make Horatio Alger Jr. sound as subtle as James Joyce. With luck and pluck, the brave breast cancer heroine carries on and ultimately kicks cancer to the curb.

Those are good stories. But that’s not my story.

Last November, I attended a panel discussion called “Many Faces of Breast Cancer: Living with Advanced Breast Cancer,” one of a series of national events AstraZeneca sponsored.

Dr. Sandy Goldberg, a nutritionist and weekend health contributor to NBC Channel 5, moderated the discussion. She told us she had experienced “everything you saw on the tape” referring to an AstraZeneca video featuring three women with metastatic breast cancer.

This set off enraged whispers in my row. Dr. Goldberg seemingly had an early stage cancer discovered in 2000. She did a 14-part, local-Emmy winning series on her breast cancer in 2002. But she apparently does not have metastatic breast cancer. It’s not clear what treatment she had, but at any rate it would seem her treatment ended at least six years ago. In 2002 she launched the Silver Lining Foundation to provide resources to those uninsured and underinsured individuals, often women of color.

According to the foundation’s 990 form, Dr. Goldberg receives a salary of $73,750 or 27% of the net revenues; $96,000 or 36% is spent on mammograms. The rest is spent on other administrative costs like rent, professional fees, salaries and benefits for those other than Dr. Goldberg.

The next day, we saw a student journalist’s online report. “The attendees wore mostly pink,” according to the student. “Some stuck to understated pink handbags or pink ribbons pinned to their lapels, while others celebrated in head-to-toe pink ensembles. They swapped stories, hugs and tears until the expert panel took the stage for the evening’s conversation.”

I spoke to six MBC women before the event began. We were all wearing earth tones: brown, black and perhaps olive green. None of us had any pink accessories. No pink ribbon pins. No one in my group hugged or cried and I observed no such carrying on as I looked around the room. I did see one elderly lady wearing a track suit which may have had pink stripes.

We are women with an incurable disease. Nothing said at this meeting offered any great epiphany. Maybe people were excited about the free food, but I found nothing to celebrate and there were certainly no high fives or fist bumps being exchanged in my corner.

Why would the student write something if it wasn’t true? She probably did see a couple of friends hugging. But, perhaps more likely, people have an idea of what breast cancer and breast cancer patients should be. They don’t like to let reality get in the way of a warm and fuzzy story.

We thought the presentation was going to focus on MBC. It didn’t. We complained to the organizers in person and later in writing. We felt brushed off.

Last October, my local paper featured a breast cancer awareness advertising section. All of the women profiled belonged to the “Treat it and Beat it” sorority beloved of reporters writing about breast cancer.

There was not a single word about recurrence. And yet, until a woman dies
of something else, there is always the possibility her cancer can come back, even if she was successfully treated for an early stage cancer and even if she completed her treatment as long as 25 years ago.

The special section had no insights for MBC women. The only oblique mention of Stage IV concerned a golf tournament named after a woman who died. Beyond the time, place and funds raised, we learned nothing further.

The day after Elizabeth Edwards died, “Today” show host Matt Lauer and Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC chief medical editor, recapped Edward’s cancer experience. Noting that Edwards was diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer in 2004, Lauer asked Snyderman about Stage 3 survival rates.

At no time, during their discussion, did Lauer or Snyderman mention that Edwards entered the metastatic ranks in 2007 and, in fact, died from metastatic breast cancer, AKA Stage IV.

Snyderman made it sound as though Edwards somehow died of Stage 3 breast cancer.

As if to avoid alarming Stage 3 women, Snyderman warned them not to compare their situations to Edwards’. She offered no such comfort to Stage IV women.

As the interview concluded, the doctor stressed the importance of mammograms and early detection. She said that the real issue is that we are still trying to figure out what causes breast cancer.

No kidding.

As we’ve previously observed, women with MBC literally don’t count. Some estimate that there are 160,000 people living with MBC in the U.S. The reality is we don’t actually know how many of us are out there.

“One hundred and sixty thousand is an estimate only,” author and advocate Musa Mayer told Elaine Schattner last year. “Nothing more definitive is available,” she said, explaining that because the NCI and SEER database record only incidence, initial treatment and mortality data, what happens in between — in terms of recurrence and the exact number of women living with metastatic breast cancer — is undocumented.

“It is as if these metastatic women are invisible, that they literally don’t count,” she indicated. “And when we don’t count people’s needs, we can’t provide or plan for them.”

Why I am doing this? Because I refuse to be invisible.

I will be seen and heard.

I will speak up and speak out.

I will make a difference.

Two of my nieces with their grandmother's high school self portrait.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Show Us Your…Lemons!

The Mayor and some lemons are part of a global breast cancer educational effort

What do lemons have to do with breast cancer awareness? Corrine Ellsworth Beaumont uses the fruit as a visual stand-in for breasts as part of her Worldwide Breast Cancer educational effort. (I learned about Beaumont via Mothers With Cancer—thanks ladies!)

Worldwide Breast Cancer makes it easy to understand the basics of breast cancer. According to a site description: “By using a friendly metaphor to open the discussion, the opportunities to communicate go beyond language, education and culture and truly have the potential to connect globally.”

The designer’s lemon-centric visuals have been used in North America, Europe and Asia to communicate detailed information about the signs of breast cancer. They can be displayed publicly without censorship.

“The Mayor” is a female character who serves as a sort of project mascot. “When this character was tested in the Qatar, the women commented that they could identify with her because she was Muslim,” Beaumont said. “In the U.S., women said that they could identify with The Mayor because she was American. This multiple decoding of the character is the intended result of her design. It should appear to be like the viewer.”

12 Signs of Breast Cancer: Worldwide Breast Cancer's Illustration

What’s Up with the Lemons?

In 2001, Beaumont, then 21,  went to an award-winning cancer library to learn more about breast cancer. Having lost two grandmothers to the disease, she wanted to know about the relationship between family history and breast cancer risk. “I thought it would be a simple process of walking in, picking up a pamphlet and being on my way,” the designer explains. “That was far from the truth. As a 21 year-old woman, no one knew what to tell me. They pointed out several websites and gave me pamphlets aimed at middle-aged women. Not one resource gave me the full picture. I heard about lumps, but didn’t know what they felt like. There was a lot of conflicting information, and it was difficult to know which sources were accurate.”

The graphic design challenge appealed to Beaumont: Making an attractive, complete and easy to share presentation would go far to bring the information to those who were afraid, embarrassed, uninterested or overwhelmed.

She spent several months observing women being screened in a women’s health clinic and in an imaging center. “I gained some interesting insights: physicians don’t know everything, lumps are hard and not squishy, patients are handed from one step to the next without being given an overview, and women have many reasons for not being more active about their breast health.”

Next, she created a series of “Lemonland” breast screening posters. “The images were of lemons, photographed in a way that resembled breasts,” she explains. “This made the message friendly, memorable, and avoided censorship in public while allowing the information to remain specific.”

The key posters showed the 12 signs of breast cancer and the anatomy of a breast. Ellsworth Beaumont’s work elicited positive responses. But the designer realized that many people still weren’t being reached.

“Those who were not comfortable speaking English, or did not attend health fairs or visit their GP, would never see this information,” the designer explains. “I moved to England and began my doctoral research studying how to globalize the message of breast cancer using visuals. I assessed breast cancer organizations in English-speaking countries, looked at their educational materials and strategies, and analyzed campaigns. I found that most campaigns were targeted very specifically to certain groups, and when that campaign went outside that group, the campaign weakened.”

Breast Cancer Without Borders

Different countries have different screening recommendations and programs. Age, gender, family history and other factors all contributed to risk, which also changes recommendations for individuals.

“Most breast cancer educational materials were divided into race,” says Beaumont. “This required having new images to represent those individuals for each campaign. Or having materials with many images of different women to reflect the whole audience, leaving little room for visuals to represent the actual message. Often educational materials for English speakers, were better designed than their foreign-speaking counterparts. This creates a visual segregation immediately, as almost if to say, ‘The educated English speaking population is worth the illustrated pamphlet, your group is worth a few paragraphs of text.’ That of course is not the intention of any breast cancer campaign, but because of tight resources, the minority groups have the minority of the information, despite the fact that the information is available in abundance.”

As part of her doctoral project, Beaumont asked 250 women about their knowledge of breast cancer detection and screening.  “Many did not know the signs of breast cancer or what a lump felt like.,” she says “Collaborating with oncologists, radiologists, breast cancer survivors, nurses and screening technicians, the message was developed and designs were created to communicate concepts that patients didn’t understand.”

“I’m just one person with design skills and good friends that have helped me build this site.”

Beaumont, now an official doctor of design, would like to see Worldwide Breast Cancer become a global organization and attract funding to expand its efforts.

For the past five years, she  has been researching how visitors are using www.worldwidebreastcancer.com: “I’ve learned what people are searching for, what pages are the most popular and how it could be designed to make it even better. Over 50,000 people have been educated by the website so far, which is incredible and I want that number to grow even more!”

Maybe you can help.

One of Worldwide Breast Cancer's free downloadable posters.

Tagged , , ,