I hate to hear this but I know that pancreatic cancer is a bad one. It does surprise me that they give him an expected expiration date; that is not common in modern treatment until a patient is really near the end. "Less than two months after Buckingham Palace confirmed King Charles III was diagnosed with cancer, sources exclusively reveal that the king is battling pancreatic cancer and has been given two years to live. While the royal family has kept tight-lipped about the specifics of Charles’ illness, including the type of cancer he has, a source exclusively confirms that the king’s diagnosis is known to be an open secret among royal staffers. “Many courtiers believe Charles’ cancer is worse than they’re making it out to be,” a second insider adds. “Even before the diagnosis, there were concerns about his health." https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/king-charles-given-2-years-154317463.html
The remaining time depends on each individual case. From celebrities, we've learned it's often more like 4 months - 1 year. But there are cases where some are treatable for several years. And (contrary to what we are told) it has more to do with how aggressive the cancer is than "Early Diagnosis."
Well of course it does. And doctors really have no idea how much time a person has; it's a "best guess" so why put it out there? The fact that he has pancreatic cancer is devastating enough.
That is sad to hear. My mother died of pancreatic cancer 28 years ago. She lived 7 weeks after she was diagnosed.
So sad, Krys. My cousin also died of pancreatic cancer though he lived over a year during treatment. He was in his 40's when he died.
My father died of pancreatic cancer at 55 years of age. It took him pretty quickly, but he drank somewhat heavily. Many cases of pancreatic cancer start out as pancreatitis, often caused by alcohol. On the other hand, Ruth Bader Ginsburg survived for 12 years with pancreatic cancer. She had a string of cancers and other major health issues: -Diagnosed with/treated for colon cancer in 1999 at the age of 66 -Underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer in 2009 at the age of 75 -Had a stent placed in an artery in 2014 at the age of 81 -Broke 3 ribs in 2018 at the age of 85. The CT Scan found lung cancer. --She had surgery to remove a lobe of her lung. ---This was the very first time she made a day on the bench. -Pancreatic cancer returned and took her life in 2020 at the age of 87. So even with unrelated cancers before and after, she squeezed another decade out of it.
I believe Steve Jobs survived for about 7 years after being diagnosed, but I read that the odds of a patient living five years is just 5.8 percent.
I just saw Princess Kate's announcement that she, too has cancer. Wow. I guess all the "William is having an affair" jackasses can STFU.
I wonder shat kind of cancer Kate has? She didn't say other than it was abdominal in nature. Pancreatic cancer seems to be increasing dramatically in recent years and I think that early diagnosis is needed here. Pancreatic cancer is often missed for (perhaps) years, as it is largely asymptomatic in early stages, so it is not diagnosed unless a CT or MRI is done of the abdomen for other reasons. When it is first diagnosed, it is often already stage 4 a may be invasive or metastatic. I recently had a friend who was diagnosed with what was first thought to be pancreatic cancer, but it was determined to be ductile cancer of the common bile duct instead. While still very serious and life-threatening--she had a Whipple procedure done--it may not be as deadly as pancreatic.
As long as we're discussing cancer among royalty... Another member of the UK royal family was diagnosed with cancer several weeks before that. Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, confirmed on social media that she was diagnosed with malignant melanoma after several moles were removed while she was undergoing reconstructive surgery after a mastectomy. In an Instagram post in January, the duchess wrote at the time: “I have been taking some time to myself as I have been diagnosed with malignant melanoma, a form of skin cancer, my second cancer diagnosis within a year after I was diagnosed with breast cancer this summer and underwent a mastectomy and reconstructive surgery.
Not as simple as "Early Detection." https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/lead-time-bias Criteria for Benefit from Screening: Longer Survival versus Decreased Mortality There are several reasons why “improved” survival rates among women who volunteer to be screened do not necessarily establish benefit from screening. They include selection bias, lead-time bias, length bias, and interval cancers.11 Thus, differences in survival rates may be influenced by variables other than the screening process itself. Selection bias refers to the possibility that women who volunteer for screening differ from those who do not volunteer in ways that may alter the outcome of their diseases, such as health status and behavioral factors. Therefore, survival rates in screened and nonscreened women may be influenced by variables other than the screening process itself. Lead-time bias implies that screening may affect the date of detection but not necessarily the date of death from breast cancer. Let us suppose that a woman who has never been screened finds her breast cancer serendipitously in 2004. She dies from her disease five years later, in 2009. If this same woman had been screened, her cancer might have been detected by mammography in the year 2001. Although small, the cancer detected in this woman by mammography has microscopic dissemination beyond the breast. Despite screening, the woman will die from her disease in the year 2009. Because of screening, she is said to have survived for 8 years instead of 5 years. Therefore, the seemingly three-year improvement in survival is not real. Length bias sampling postulates that cancers detected at screening contain a disproportionate number of less aggressive lesions. Their growth rates are so slow that in the absence of screening they might never reach sufficient size to surface clinically. Even if undetected, such cancers might never result in death. Finally, more favorable survival rates for screen-detected cancers may be negated by lower survival rates for faster-growing interval cancers that are undetected by mammography and that surface clinically between screenings. Considering these potential biases, benefit from screening cannot be proven by observation of improved survival rates. Rather, such proof requires prospective comparison of breast cancer death rates among a study group of women offered screening and a control group of women not offered screening in a RCT. Apart from the offer to be screened, these groups should not differ in any other substantial way. Therefore, a statistically significant difference in breast cancer deaths between the groups on follow-up may be considered proof of whether there is benefit from the screening. Observation of lower mortality for the screened group in a well-designed and well-conducted RCT is not affected by selection bias, lead-time bias, length bias, or interval cancers.
You are comparing different types of cancer. Breast cancer, which comes in many forms, is routinely screened. There is no one who is routinely screened for pancreatic cancer. Not the same thing and your argument does not apply to this.
The double cancer blow to Kate and King Charles leaves Britain's royal family depleted and strained. The Princess of Wales said Friday that she has cancer and is undergoing chemotherapy.Mar 23, 2024 And you can take it to the bank that they both took a good share of the covid jabs.....And so much news on the rise of cancer cases from the jabs...