I Love Manchego Cheese

Odd title, you say? Indeed. Actually, it's the mnemonic I've used for the last couple of days to try to remember the 4 things I wanted to blog about: Interview, L., Myths, and Checkup.

Let's take them in reverse order, because the biggest and best thing is my checkup--which I had earlier this week, which included my annual mammogram as well as the blood and physical exams, which was all clear, and which officially established my 2-year anniversary of surviving breast cancer. Yay!!! (Technically, it's not quite 2 years, but I think we can assume I won't relapse suddenly in the next 2 weeks.) I've said this before, but my brand of triple-negative cancer is at greatest risk for relapse in the first 2 years. Risk drops dramatically after that until 5 years, and then it drops precipitously after that. So there's no "home free"--I am knocking wood with my elbows as I type--but this is a Big Deal anniversary.

It's almost like I might start to dare to imagine a life in which breast cancer never comes back. It's an audacious thought, but I just might get there.

OK, second--myths. Recently--on blogs and websites--I came across some very credible-sounding information suggesting that I should get my subsequent gynecological care from an oncological gynecologist. The information suggested that women who have had breast cancer are at significantly increased risk of ovarian and uterine cancers, and that they (we) should be closely monitored. Note that I have not linked to this information. That's because I asked Christy, my oncologist, about this at my checkup, and learned that in fact the higher risk of reproductive cancers is only true for women with some of the genetic (BRCA) breast cancers*--not for me. And, at USC, the oncological gynecologists will not even see healthy women (including BC survivors)--it's not medically warranted.

It continues to amaze me how many myths are out there about breast cancer, and how much misinformation abounds. Of course, there are also legitimate differences of opinion among physicians, but it is so easy for false "wisdom" to take root.

Speaking of this--did anyone say "malpractice"? I've been repeating this horror story to several people recently and I still can't quite believe it.

A friend of a friend was recently diagnosed with breast cancer. She lives in a small town, not near a major university medical center or comparable breast center. After her surgery, she was told that her tumor would not be tested--since most tumors are hormone positive, she would just be treated as if hers were. That means she would have hormone therapy and no chemo. How appalling! First, hormone therapy is pretty nasty, according to my friends who are on it. It may not make you lose your hair, but you lose other things--from sleep to bone density. No one should be on hormone therapy if it's not absolutely necessary. Second, what if this woman is a triple negative, like me? In our case, chemo can be all the more important--a recent study (cited in a post below) showed that it can make all the difference in survival.

This woman is so relieved to be told she won't have to have chemo that she hesitates to push further and ask more questions. Fortunately, with our mutual friend's prompting, she has gone back and asked for more, and the pathology tests are finally being done, and I hope she will have appropriate treatment. When I told Christy, her eyes blazed and she said "Malpractice!" instantly. It's scary to think how many thousands of women out there could be being treated like this. All my blogosphere pals and support group friends tend to be well to do and urban; I worry for our sisters who are less economically blessed and who live in humbler, more rural places. Why should their lives count for any less?

Finally, interview. The one link I add.* This week, my local NPR affiliate, KPCC, ran a half-hour interview with Dr. Susan Love about breast cancer. It's a very interesting interview in which she talks about a test she's trying to develop for susceptibility to breast cancer (you put something like a bandaid on your nipple and produce some fluid, and a pregnancy-test kind of readout tells you if you have abnormal cells--kind of like a pap smear for breasts, to give early warning before cancer actually develops); a study that found that a small amount of chemo injected directly into the ducts can kill cancer cells (no more surgery??); and, frustratingly, "the 5 kinds of breast cancer," which she never actually named. Give it a listen if you have some time.

By the way, I do indeed love Manchego cheese. It's especially good with some kalamata olives and apples. Mmmm.

*I'm so sorry, but I am too lazy to link tonight. Am just trying to cram this post into a few short available minutes between work and sleep--please Google if you want to learn more, and sorry for falling short on my informational duties. I thought it was better to post at all (after my long absence!) than to wait and do it perfectly.