Everyone dies of something. The chances are higher that a person who has had cancer will eventually die of cancer, but that day can still be a long time away.
According to my Oncologist, males will die of prostate cancer before they reach 100 and females will die of breast cancer before they reach 100 if something else doesn't kill them first. He says it is over 99% accurate. My oldest cousin that was never sick a day in her life, not even a headache, died at 97 from breast cancer so I believe my Oncologist is correct. The genetics of cancer is interesting in that cancer that affects the prostate is related to breast cancer.
Girl, please.... hog away!!! No need to shut up; we enjoy the conversation. Glad to report that I am feeling somewhat better today so maybe y'all will be spared the whining.
That kinda/sorta leads to a whole bunch of questions that don't really matter. "Signs of cancer" is different than symptomatic cancer contributing to being too weak to fight off (or recover from) the other thing that's the official cause of death.
That's good news (the feeling better part, not the declining whining part...although D.W. is certainly a bonus.)
Many cancers are slow growing and take years to cause any symptoms. We'd probably be horrified to know how many people are walking around with active disease, totally oblivious. I am honestly shocked by the number of posters on the BC forum who have had "clear" mammograms and were diagnosed with cancer a month or 2 later. The type I have typically doesn't present with a lump so is frequently missed until it has progressed to late stage. (It is never less that Stage 3; mine is 3C which is terrifyingly close to "4".)
I had no idea that cancer could present itself so soon after a clean mammogram. That doesn't make sense to me. It never thought it grew that quickly. Or perhaps mammograms aren't all they're cracked up to be (either the technology or the process.) I may have mentioned I escorted one friend through a biopsy process, which ended up being a benign lump she discovered via self-exam. It's so frightening. I recall your mentioning that IBC only presents itself as a rash at a late stage. The whole thing is paranoia-inducing. One of the procedures I had done was a prostate biopsy, even though everyone knew that what the docs felt were just calcium deposits (my PSA was less than a 10th of the level to be concerned with.) But once someone drops "The C Word" you don't capitulate.
Exactly! a high percentage of older folks have slow-growing cancer but don't know it. Once over 70 many doctors and patients don't worry about slow-growing cancers because they figure something else will kill them first. Unless autopsies are performed on every old person dying, then who knows how many had cancer.
Actually, the problem is with mammogram technology; they still can't "see" in dense breast tissue, so many cancers get missed. Also sloppy radiologists, patronizing doctors, etc. IBC can present in other ways... swollen breast, "peau d'orange" skin, extreme redness and heat, etc. I was "lucky" to have a small pinkish bruise and a PCP who knew that I didn't need an antibiotic but that something more sinister was "abreast."
I think the "false negative" mammograms are mostly inept radiologists. It was demonstrated years ago that computers can read radiologic images of all kinds better than humans can, including CTs and MRI/MRAs. The same is said of much of anatomic pathology, although that is not as clear. You would still need a few of both specialties, but most of those doctors could be eliminated from the "revenue stream". Clinical pathologists and diagnostic radiologists would still be needed, and perhaps in larger numbers.