yikes

I was just reading a report about survival rates among lumpectomy/radiation
vs. mastectomy.....the rates were comparable, as most of you here know.
but....these were 20-year rates, and only 37% of the women were still alive!
YIKES

"pumpkin" <rainmad@att.net> wrote in message
news:BxZQh.15796$VU4.14264@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>I was just reading a report about survival rates among lumpectomy/radiation
>vs. mastectomy.....the rates were comparable, as most of you here know.
>but....these were 20-year rates, and only 37% of the women were still
>alive! YIKES

Considering that average breast cancer patient is diagnosed in their is in
their mid sixties that number sounds pretty good considering 37% out lived
their normal life expectancy.

I think the age range was 40-63


"alex" <alex@noemail.ctv> wrote in message
news:WLSdnfC_rozU8YnbnZ2dnUVZ_tSunZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "pumpkin" <rainmad@att.net> wrote in message
> news:BxZQh.15796$VU4.14264@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>I was just reading a report about survival rates among
>>lumpectomy/radiation vs. mastectomy.....the rates were comparable, as most
>>of you here know. but....these were 20-year rates, and only 37% of the
>>women were still alive! YIKES
>
> Considering that average breast cancer patient is diagnosed in their is in
> their mid sixties that number sounds pretty good considering 37% out lived
> their normal life expectancy.
>

"alex" <alex@noemail.ctv> wrote in message
news:WLSdnfC_rozU8YnbnZ2dnUVZ_tSunZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "pumpkin" <rainmad@att.net> wrote in message
> news:BxZQh.15796$VU4.14264@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>I was just reading a report about survival rates among
>>lumpectomy/radiation vs. mastectomy.....the rates were comparable, as most
>>of you here know. but....these were 20-year rates, and only 37% of the
>>women were still alive! YIKES
>
> Considering that average breast cancer patient is diagnosed in their is in
> their mid sixties that number sounds pretty good considering 37% out lived
> their normal life expectancy.

Also note that when you're talking about 20-year survival, you're talking
about survivors of an earlier generation of treatments. There has been
progress, and more is in the pipeline.

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email

"pumpkin" <rainmad@att.net> wrote in message
news:BxZQh.15796$VU4.14264@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>I was just reading a report about survival rates among lumpectomy/radiation
>vs. mastectomy.....the rates were comparable, as most of you here know.
>but....these were 20-year rates, and only 37% of the women were still
>alive! YIKES


*ONLY* 37% ?

Good Heavens, how many people do you know who will be sure that 37% of them
will still be alive in 20 years? Bad grammar, sorry.

I'm not just talking about bc and its related conditions - life is a
terminal disease.

Sorry to be so forthright but having survived a lot of conditions I've
learned how fragile our bodies are. We must make the most of every moment.

Why are you reading such statistics?

And why am I sitting at the computer on a glorious spring morning?

I'm as bad as you :-)

Enjoy every minute and don't worry. We add not one moment to our lives by
worrying.

Big hugs,

Mary


>
>

pumpkin wrote:
> I think the age range was 40-63
>
>

Yeah but, yeah but, the distribution will be very heavily skewed to the
older end, because bc is very rare in younger women. All it really says
is that most women die in their 70s. We knew that. Yes perhaps if you
took a bunch of bc survivors and a bunch of random women, sure the life
expectancy of the bc survivors might be a couple of years less. Not
very scary, not so bad as if you took, say, smokers, obese people or
poor people as your sample. And anyway, this statistic doesn't shed any
light at all on that distribution.

I know this group is a bad example, we get lots of 50-ish bc patients
here, but that is because of the technology, not the disease. Computer
literacy is relatively rare among the over-60s. If we got the same
proportion of the world's bc patients as we do of the worlds *youngest*
bc patients, there's be millions of writers.

When attaching meaning to statistics, it always pays to think carefully
about what exactly is being said. And when reading statistics reported
by journalists, to try to figure what the statistics the journalist was
reading and quoting out of context, actually said. That last is kind of
hard, and is why you see people asking for references to back up
controversial statements.


Tim Jackson

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:30:43 GMT, Tim Jackson wrote in
news:4614c1c3$0$8716$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net:

> When attaching meaning to statistics, it always pays to
> think carefully about what exactly is being said. And when
> reading statistics reported by journalists, to try to
> figure what the statistics the journalist was reading and
> quoting out of context, actually said. That last is kind
> of hard, and is why you see people asking for references to
> back up controversial statements.

Oh, yes. And, statisticians have specific meanings for the words
they use when describing something. As an example, 'significant'
connotes something entirely different to a statistician than it
does to an average mortal. Often it takes a translator to
accurately relate what the statistician was actually trying to
say (something that Tim does extremely well).

Pumpkin, this is a support group and I think our "Charter" (Do we have
one?) should say something about no scarring the innocent readers
"before" they digest breakfast. I don't believe in statistics, I
believe in man and "woman's" basic desire to survive. That beats all
odds!

I also agree with the other posters that probably most of these women
were either in late 50's or 60's when diagnosed and they "still" managed
to live out a normal lifespan. So please find something else to be
concerned about and be extra careful crossing streets if you are reading
those statistics at the same time. THAT can shorten a lifespan a heck
of a lot quicker!

Have a nice day.

Bea

'NO FORWARDS OR SPAM, PLEASE"

"Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4614c1c3$0$8716$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> pumpkin wrote:
>> I think the age range was 40-63
>>
>>
>
> Yeah but, yeah but, the distribution will be very heavily skewed to the
> older end, because bc is very rare in younger women. All it really says
> is that most women die in their 70s.

Which in my case is coming up fast :-(

> We knew that. Yes perhaps if you took a bunch of bc survivors and a bunch
> of random women, sure the life expectancy of the bc survivors might be a
> couple of years less. Not very scary, not so bad as if you took, say,
> smokers, obese people

Don't make it worse, Tim!

:-)

>
> I know this group is a bad example, we get lots of 50-ish bc patients
> here, but that is because of the technology, not the disease. Computer
> literacy is relatively rare among the over-60s.

It isn't, you know. Looking for or even knowledge of and certainly
subscribing to newsgroups just doesn't reflect the number of computer
literate people of any age there are.


> When attaching meaning to statistics, it always pays to think carefully
> about what exactly is being said. And when reading statistics reported by
> journalists, to try to figure what the statistics the journalist was
> reading and quoting out of context, actually said. That last is kind of
> hard, and is why you see people asking for references to back up
> controversial statements.

And really there's not much point, is there? It's not going to change our
lives.

Well, perhaps it might in USA where there seems (to me) to be an urge to
find the 'best' authority on any cancer, in UK my experience is that people
ask - and believe - their oncologists and surgeons about their own
particular cases.

The trust I placed in my breast cancer team and my husband placed in his
prostate cancer team has served us well. Yes, we read about the conditions,
the approaches to treatments and other people's experiences but we haven't
despared from anything we'd read. We're all different and all cancers are
different. If things were always the same it would be much easier for
researchers and practitioners. As it is we leave the interpretations of such
data to the experts and we're not experts.

Mary
>
>
> Tim Jackson

"Bea Oo" <pm95sb@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19670-4614FA07-42@storefull-3255.bay.webtv.net...
> Pumpkin, this is a support group and I think our "Charter" (Do we have
> one?) should say something about no scarring the innocent readers

the last thing most of want to do here is scar anyone; I don't even own a
scalpel!!! But words can scar, too....those stats are interesting. Not
something I would have thought about beyond maybe 3.7 minutes or so though.
and there are far more depressing things in the world to occupy those of us
who are "thinking about depressing things" hobbyists....

> Have a nice day.

that wasn't in my plans but one never knows.
>
> Bea
>
> 'NO FORWARDS OR SPAM, PLEASE"
>

fortunata wrote:
> "Bea Oo" <pm95sb@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:19670-4614FA07-42@storefull-3255.bay.webtv.net...
> > Pumpkin, this is a support group and I think our "Charter" (Do we have
> > one?) should say something about no scarring the innocent readers
>
> the last thing most of want to do here is scar anyone;

I think that was a typo for "scare", the sort spell checkers don't catch.

We don't have a formal charter, but we did once put some stuff on a
website to define what we thought we were about, and to provide answers
to frequently asked questions.

(we being, Allan really, with help from me and some others, but he
copped out and appointed me as webmaster.)

It's still there, although it hasn't been updated for a while.

It's at www.cancersupporters.com

It would be nice to have a rule "not to frighten the horses" but I think
when someone is scared themselves, it tends to be infectious.


Tim

>I think that was a typo for "scare", the sort
> spell checkers don't catch.

You are right, as usual, Tim. I did do a spellcheck on it but could not
figure out which word they gave was for "scare". One on "your" side
again!<g

Bea

'NO FORWARDS OR SPAM, PLEASE"