After mastectomy, women are sent to see the oncologists, and they are often told to go for chemotherapy. This treatment is like an “insurance” against future problems. Chemotherapy can kill all the remaining cancer cells in the body. In this way the cancer can be cured. Chemotherapy can also stop cancer from spreading to other parts of the body. Or at the very least it slows the cancer growth. To the oncologists, chemotherapy is the proven way to go, other ways are hocus pocus!

These points are often well taken by women in general. The fear of recurrence is sufficient enough to make women go through chemotherapy. To them, the sufferings of the treatment are worth enduring for the promise of cure at the end of the adventure. What some oncologists don’t tell their patients is that not all the cancer cells are killed by the treatment. There is no way that a hundred percent of the cancer cells can be wiped by chemotherapy. Add to that, even the good healthy cells are killed and the immune system destroyed.

Patients, on the other hand don’t ask these questions: Will there truly be a cure? If indeed the promise of cure is real, can we put it in terms of real numbers or percentage? To put it bluntly, how effective is chemotherapy for breast cancer? I wonder how many women ask their oncologists these questions, and if they do, what would the answers be like?

a) Without chemotherapy what percentage of people died or would die from breast cancer?

b) With chemotherapy what percentage of people are cured or would be cured?

c) What is meant by cure?

Try and search the answers from the internet and see if you can get anything. There is a great chance that you will go on a merry go round trip! I experienced exactly just that and was terribly disappointed. Thousands of articles are written about breast cancer but I fail to find the clear-cut answers to the above questions. Perhaps they are not important? Or something that women do not need to know before they embark on their treatment? Women just need to have full faith and trust in the experts and everything would turn out fine. Few women realize that such attitude may just be the beginning of more problems to come.

Let me try to share what I have gathered from the medical literature.

Karin Stabiner in her book (To dance with the devil) wrote: “Breast cancer takes the life of an American woman every twelve minutes. There is no sure cure for the disease, no known way to prevent it and no means of predicting.” With all the advances in science and technology, may I ask, how could this be? Why such high degree of uncertainty?

Chantal Bernard-Marty, Fatima Cardoso, Martine J. Piccart of Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium (The Oncologist 9: 617-632, Nov. 2004) wrote: “20%–85% of patients … who are diagnosed with early breast cancer will later develop recurrent and/or metastatic disease. Despite more than 3 decades of research, metastatic breast cancer remains essentially incurable.” Women are told that “catching” breast cancer early is a sure way of saving life. But how is it that even after early detection, twenty to eighty-five percent of patients still go on to develop more serious cancer that is incurable? Has the treatment protocols got anything to do with such failures?

How effective is chemotherapy?

Writing in Clinical Oncology (2004. 16: 549-560), three Australian doctors: Graeme Morgan, Robyn Ward & Michael Baton noted that in Australia, of the 10,661 people who had breast cancer only 164 people survived five years due to chemotherapy. This works out to 1.5% contribution of chemotherapy to survival. In their paper, they concluded that “overall contribution of curative and adjuvant chemotherapy to five-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.”

Professor Michael Boyer, head of Medical Oncology of the Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital disputed this 2% figure. He said: “It’s not correct for a number of reasons. The 2% figure is achieved by including a whole series of diseases in which chemotherapy would never be used.” To the professor the more “correct” figures should be 5% or 6%. Okay, let us accept that new figures -- how do women feel about it -- going for chemotherapy to achieve a five to six percent success?

In the editorial of the Australian Prescriber (2006. 29:2-3), Eva Segelov wrote: “Chemotherapy has been oversold. Chemotherapy has improved survival by less than 3% in adults with cancer.”

Veroort et al. from the Netherlands (British J. Cancer. 2004. 91: 242-247) in their study on the role of tamoxifen and chemotherapy for breast cancer concluded that “breast cancer mortality reduction caused by present-day practice of adjuvant tamoxifen and chemotherapy is 7%. Tamoxifen contributes most to the mortality reduction. The overall effect of chemotherapy on mortality is very small.” Take note that the contribution of chemotherapy to breast cancer survival is very small – what is very small? To be sure it has to be much, much less than 7%.

Guy Faguet, after spending numerous years of research on cancer, came to this startling conclusion (The War on Cancer: An anatomy of failure, a blueprint for the future. Springer, 2005): “An objective analysis of cancer chemotherapy outcomes over the last three decades reveals that, despite vast human and financial expenditures, the cell-killing paradigm had failed to achieve its objective … the conquest of cancer remains a distant and elusive goal.” Chemotherapy for cancer is based on “flawed premises with an unattainable goal, cytotoxic chemotherapy in its present form will neither eradicate cancer not alleviate suffering.”

Cured of Breast Cancer?

In a study of 1,547 breast cancer patients at the University of Chicago Hospital, USA, from 1945 to 1987, Theodore Karrison et al. (J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 1999. 91:80-85) observed that for patients who underwent mastectomy but without chemotherapy or radiotherapy, most recurrences occurred within the first ten years after mastectomy. Recurrences were rare after 20 to 25 years. Patients surviving to this time without evidence of recurrence are probably cured.

Women are often told that if they survive five years after their diagnosis of breast cancer, they are considered cured of breast cancer. Based on the work of Karrison et al. this assumption is presumptuous and is not true at all. Women perhaps need to be reminded of what Guy Faguet wrote: “We must recognize that “cure” is not an absolute term because minimal residual or slowly recurrent disease that causes no symptoms can persist and remain undetected for years.” Take note, the cancer can remain dormant in the body for years not just five years!

An article in a well known German magazine, Der Spiegel (4 October 2004) featured an article with this title: The Useless Poisonous Cures. It says: “Increasingly sophisticated and expensive cellular poisons are being given to seriously ill patients … patients do not actually live a day longer.” At first impression I thought the article was rather rash on the so called “noble” effort of the Vested Interest to find a cure for cancer. My perception has since changed after much reading – I begin to question if the effort is really noble or something else – a deception done in the name of science?

It is well known that breast cancer is a common, much feared disease among women worldwide. In the US alone, it is said that each year 180,000 women were diagnosed with breast cancer and 44,000 will die of it. This works out to be almost 25% death due to breast cancer after diagnosis. Why must 25% of them die? What happen to all the research that are being done and the hype that a cure is around the corner?

In Malaysia and also elsewhere, women with breast cancer undergoes a standard recipe of treatments -- surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and hormonal oral drug. I was shocked to be told by a bank executive that the oncologist offered her a $50,000 state-of-the-art-package-deal to cure her breast cancer after finding a lump in her breast. This offer was made even before a surgery was done.

The chemotherapy regimes commonly used for breast cancer are anthracycline-based. Perhaps breast cancer patients are more familiar with these names: AC (Andriamycin + cyclophosphamide), CAF (cyclophosphamide + Adriamycin + 5-FU), CEF (cyclophosphamide + epirubicin + 5-FU). Patients receiving such regimen are told that this is the state-of-the-art treatment. It is scientifically proven. The effectiveness of such a treatment has undergone peer review and is published in peer-reviewed journal. The treatment can prevent further spread of the cancer and patients can be cured.

Naïve patients accept their doctors’ words with good faith. In countries where medical treatments are not paid by the government, patients have to find their own money to pay for the medical expenses. Some patients have to sell their house, land or jewellery to finance their hunt for a cure.

It is most shocking to learn that at a closed session of a select group of people during the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting held in Chicago (2007), Dr. Dennis Slamon, chief of Oncology at the University of California at Los Angeles, revealed that his research had indicated that anthracycline chemo-drugs such as Andriamycin, provide no benefit whatever to about 92% of breast cancer patients. Dr. Slamon’s research has shown that the most widely used chemo-drug may not benefit most women. To find no benefit is one thing but pay for and receive a drug that causes severe toxicities is another thing. These anthracyclines are notoriously dangerous because they are known to cause damage to the heart or may even cause secondary cancer like leukemia.

The National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC) – a grass roots advocacy group in the US released this statement (May 2007) in its website: “NBCC urges the oncology community to reassess the use of anthracycline-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer.”

The Coalition urged that it “may very well be the time to do away with anthracycline drugs”. Such drugs only benefit a very small percentage -- only 8% -- of breast patients whose breast cancer co-amplify the Her2 and TopoII genes. This point is worth repeating: only patients tested positive for Her2 and TopoII benefit from anthracycline-base chemotherapy.

Is the medical community willing to change its ways of treating breast cancer in the light of this research evidence? The NBCC said: “while the medical oncology community is quick to embrace additional treatments, it is extremely cautions toward change in the other direction even when the evidence warrants it. Meanwhile, women with breast cancer are subject to complex regimens of toxic and expensive treatments that they simply may not need.”

Having breast cancer is not an automatic death sentence, but it does put a person on an emotional roller coaster. I speak from personal experience.

In 2001, I went for my standard mammogram. A suspicious area reveal the same mass as last year’s test, so another ultrasound was ordered. This time the doctor advised me to schedule a biopsy even though I felt well and had no pain. I was positive the doctor was wrong, but I made the appointment anyway.

At work, I scheduled time off, including an extra day so I could go to the last Diamondback baseball home game to see if they would advance to the playoffs. I was positive the test would reveal I was all right, without cancer.

Back at work, I got the test results of an infiltrating carcinoma stage 2/3 via a phone call. I turned so white, my co-workers wanted to know if I was all right. I mumbled I was okay and gave my primary care doctor the name of the surgeon I preferred for treatment. This surgeon had removed a lump in 1998 and tests showed it was benign and I had full confidence in his skills. Later, I realized this was the beginning of denial, a common experience.

My surgeon went over the potential treatment, but I knew I really had only one option if I truly wanted to get well, a modified mastectomy. Fear now set in.

At first, I refused to talk about my disease or try to put a support group in place. I was going to “tough it out.” Finally I realized I needed an outlet and began gathering my personal cheerleaders from family, friends, church members, and e-mail contacts I had never met. This was the beginning of reality for my life as it was and dealing with my emotions instead of stuffing them inside. On the third day after I received my cancer news, the beginning of my healing began. My mantra became, “this is only a bump in the road.”

I even reached out. I went to a nurse friend and had her talk to me about my upcoming surgery. A mastectomy was similar to peeling an onion. Visualizing a peeling onion made me laugh. It was a good way to combat nerves. I felt ready. Surgery was scheduled for October 30, 2001.

Back home after surgery, I healed. My husband even allowed me complete control of the TV remote. Wow! I also started following my dream of becoming a writer. I kept notes of my feelings, which eventually led to a 22-page booklet titled, Breast Cancer Survivor Year One published by Elan Press. I sold it for cost ($5) to my friends or to people who needed help with cancer, either for themselves, or for their friends or family.

My five years of follow-up treatment (taking tamoxifen only, no chemo or radiation) have passed and my life goes on with writing dominating my life. Cancer became the turning point for me to follow my lifetime dream.

Points to understand to help you recover:
1. Support group are the first line of defense. They can be found online and locally.
2. Make sure you have developed relaxation techniques for yourself. Choose something easy to do that really takes tension away for you. Some suggestions are watching funny movies at home, listening to music, or reading a book.
3. Understand what drain tubes are, why you need them, and most of all, make sure someone shows you how to keep them in place by fastening the tubes to a shirt or a nightgown. Your doctor can explain all about drain tubes and some hospital nurses can usually show you how to fasten those tubes to a shirt.
4. Take lots of time to decide to wear prosthesis (fake boob) or to have reconstruction if you have a mastectomy.
5. Have someone show you what prosthesis looks like (check with a cancer support group or someone who has gone through this process; hospitals often can help you make this connection). Hold it to see how it feels and ask about the type of special bra you will need to wear if you choose to wear a prosthesis.
6. Ask about buying special bras for prosthesis (usually checking with your insurance gains this information, although cancer support groups and hospital cancer help can give you information to get you started) and know what a fitter does to ensure you are fitted correctly for these items.
7. See if you can find someone who sews to see if they can convert the bra portion of a regular swimsuit with pockets to hold a prosthesis. That’s cheaper than buying a commercial suit at $100! I now take the soft, stretchy cloth covering for my prosthesis and pin it to the swimsuit bra portion to hold my prosthesis in place.
8. Make sure you understand your doctor’s instructions for caring for your arm if lymph nodes are removed to check for cancer cells. Sometimes you may be limited for lifting a number of pounds, and after a healing time, you will need to do exercise to ensure you have mobility for future arm use.

A great stir was caused by the recent statement by Sheryl Crow on national television that a doctor told her that women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car, because the heat causes toxins from the plastic to leak into the water. She also said the doctor told her that the chemicals have been found in breast tissue and these chemicals can lead to breast cancer.

Articles on the Internet referenced the websites of organizations that had previously addressed this concern, including Breastcancer.org and Plasticsmythbusters.org, which is affiliated with the American Chemistry Council. Both organizations considered the connection between plastic water bottles and breast cancer risk to be “an urban myth” and say the theory is unproven.

The fact that a direct causal connection has not yet been proven beyond a shred of doubt does not mean that the theory is a myth.

It has been proven that phthalates, which are compounds used as softeners and plasticizers for products made with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) accelerate breast cell growth in animal studies. These chemicals have also been found to adversely affect the reproductive and endocrine system, especially in baby boys. In a recent study, phthalates were recently linked to low testosterone levels which appears to cause increased belly fat and pre-diabetes in men.

These softeners and plasticizers are used in a variety of consumer and personal care products including food packaging materials, toys, and medical/pharmaceutical devices and drugs. The most commonly used phthalate is DEHP. Food contamination has definitely been found to occur when plastic food packaging materials are made from PVC that was treated with phthalates. As a general rule, we should not cook or heat foods in most plastics. This caveat is especially applicable to old plastic containers in which the surface is eroding the concern being based upon the fact that plasticizers are released during heating. Not all plastic containers are microwaveable. Look for directions regarding this on the packaging.

According to a panel doctor on Breastcancer.org, scientists make sure that during animal studies they don’t contaminate experiments with plastics by using old plastic equipment that have been used and washed many times. Don’t you think you should be a little more concern about contaminating your body? It is possible that water left in the car where the temperature can almost reach the boiling point may be cause for similar concern. It may not be one incident of drinking water from a heated plastic bottle that leads to increased cancer risk, but an accumulation of several risky behaviors or exposure related to plastics just may promote cancer.

We don’t know definitively all the causes of cancer, but we are exposed to so many possible agents that may contribute to cancer, some of them are naturally occurring and some are man-made that there will never be ample epidemiological human studies or data that prove or disprove these “myths.” Some of these agents may not directly cause cancer alone, but they can cause direct damage to genes or disrupt the immune system or alter the hormone balance in such a way as to create a fertile environment for cancer cells to grow.

Another of these “myths” that have circulated on the Internet for several years is that using underarm deodorants or antiperspirants that contain parabens can cause breast cancer. And the consensus among scientists is there is no connection between antiperspirants and breast cancer.

Nevertheless, researchers found six different kinds of parabens in the breast cancer tissue samples of women who were being treated for breast cancer. All of the samples contained some parabens. The amount of parabens in the samples was about equal to the amount that had caused breast cancer cells to grow in test tubes in earlier studies.

The researchers concluded that these chemicals enter breast tissue from outside sources and accumulate in levels high enough to trigger the growth of breast cancer cells. Parabens are also used to preserve foods, medicines, and cosmetics. So there are lots of opportunities for exposure to these chemicals.

Another contributor to breast cancer was recently reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Cadmium, a toxic heavy metal that can build up in the body over time was linked to increased breast cancer risk.

Researchers measured cadmium levels in the urine samples from a group of women and found that women with the highest cadmium levels had twice the breast cancer risk of those with the lowest levels. People may be exposed to cadmium from tobacco smoke and some foods such as liver, kidney, crustaceans (lobsters, crabs, and shrimp), and canned fish. People who work with cadmium or in refining and smelting are also exposed, but the U.S. government limits such on-the-job exposure. But once again, we have the usual disclaimer: “The study doesn't prove cadmium exposure causes breast cancer. It will take more research to figure that out.”

There will never be ample animal studies, much less human epidemiological data that prove or disprove definitively that any specific product or chemicals cause breast cancer in humans. I think it is wise to avoid suspect materials whenever possible. There is usually enough data to conclude whether or not a substance presents a risk that is harmful to your health and may contribute to breast cancer.

Many of these suspect chemicals do not affect only breast cancer risk; they are frequently harmful to the cardiovascular system and overall health.

Consumer reaction that should result if the available data were widely publicized could force consumer product manufacturers and food packagers to search for alternatives.

The wife of a friend of mine was diagnosed with breast cancer nine years ago. She underwent mastectomy, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. She was well after that. She was a pride of the medical establishment and was invited to the “Celebration of Life” party. But it was not to be. Soon after receiving the invitation she did not feel well. Her arm swelled and the doctor said this could be due to the effect of radiotherapy done NINE years ago. In November 2002, she was hospitalised and diagnosed as having metastasis of the brain. She underwent radiotherapy. After the tenth treatment she developed severe lung infection and her white blood counts dropped drastically. Further radiation treatments (twenty more sessions) were abandoned. She remained immobilised in the hospital for more than two months. After that, she developed bladder infections. She was discharged from the hospital at the end of January 2003. In mid-March 2003, she passed out stools with blood and her blood pressure dropped (internal bleeding?). On 17 March 2003, my friend called to say that his wife had died that afternoon.

My experience in cancer work has shown that death and suffering do not come suddenly following the appearance of a small lump in the brain. Then, what about the blood in the stools? Could this be another of the effects of radiation? I have once said: “In serious cancer cases, even doing nothing could be better than taking the so-called scientific, proven heroic path.”

Stories from England

The Daily Mail of 31 March 1995 carried an article entitled: “Cancer Deception” by Paul Eastham. Four angry members of RAGE (Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure) told the Members of Parliament’s Health Select Committee that “thousands of breast cancer victims were ‘fooled’ into having needless radiation which left them crippled and in agony.” They said doctors had assured them that radiotherapy was needed only as a precautionary measure after “their breast surgery and did not warn that their bones could crumble and they could lose the use of limbs.”

RAGE was founded by Lady Ironside who suffered paralysis of the arm after having undergone surgery and radiotherapy because of breast cancer. Her bone became brittle after radiotherapy and she suffered repeated fractures to her injured arm, collar bone and four ribs.

Lady Ironside said: “The radiographers weren’t frank with me. All of us in RAGE were told that there would be no profound side effects. We would suffer perhaps temporary nausea and exhaustion but no permanent injury ... Perhaps I was trusting and foolish. Now I suffer severe pains and paralysis. If I had been properly informed about the dangers, I would have walked away and said, “No, thank you”, and taken my chances.”

Later, Lady Ironside discovered that nearly one in five breast cancer patients irradiated at one London hospital suffered severe injuries which would steadily get worse.

The suffering of Lady Ironside is not an isolated case of radiation side effects. Many others have also suffered like her. RAGE represents 1,000 breast cancer radiation victims and is in touch with 2,000 more.

Former art historian Lorna Patch, 72, was forced to stop working after her right arm was paralysed following radiotherapy. She said: “I was never warned about the risks. I am in constant pain. The condition is quite irreversible and progressive.”

Jan Millinglon is a 55-year-old headmistress. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1982. She had a lump removed and then underwent radiotherapy. Jan Millinglon claims that the hospital distributed leaflets at the time of her treatment declaring that the side effects were short-lived. Her right arm, however, is paralysed as a result of radiotherapy.

I have related the sad but not unusual case story of Gene in Part 1 of this three-part article. What had happened to Gene is what I have been seeing happen all too often. After chemotherapy and radiotherapy the cancer spread to the bone. I have often wondered if the treatments had anything to do with the metastasis. Not much information can be obtained from the medical literature. It appears that such question is not important? Or is it a matter of “natural course of event”? I tend to think otherwise.

Read about radiotherapy in any standard textbook and it is acknowledged that radiation itself can cause cancer. In Gene’s case, it is even acknowledged that the increased uptake of tracer seen in L3, L4 and L5 vertebrae is most likely due to DXT. Medical people use medical terms that may be hard for a layperson to understand. So the information written in a medical report often goes unnoticed or not understood. DXT is medical abbreviation for deep X-ray treatment or radiotherapy and this statement above explicitly implicates the disastrous role of radiotherapy in treating Gene’s breast cancer. It has done much harm.

Are we to believe that Gene is just one rare unfortunate victim. I don’t believe that this is so.

Dr. Richard Evans (in The Cancer Breakthrough You’ve Never Heard Of) wrote: “It is my opinion that adjuvant radiation is used more often than necessary … The long-term risks of radiation therapy have not been completely determined.” John Robbins has to say in his book (Reclaiming Our Health) “Radiation is routinely recommended for cancer patients despite the fact that there is no proven benefit to survival … Although cancer specialists know that very few cancer patients are cured by radiotherapy, they continue to recommend it widely because they consider it to be a relatively harmless procedure.”

In the booklet, Radiation Therapy and You, published by the US National Cancer Institute, the following assurances are given: “Although some normal cells are affected by the radiation, most of them appear to recover more fully from the effects of radiation than the cancer cells. Doctors carefully limit the intensity of the treatment and the area being treated so that the cancer will be affected more than the normal healthy tissues. Radiation therapy is an effective way to treat many kinds of cancer in any part of the body.”

This is the official version of the “goodness” of radiotherapy. Do you believe it? Hear what other doctors have to say about radiotherapy.

John Cairns, a professor at the Harvard University School of Public Health (in Scientific American, November 1985) said: “The majority of cancers cannot be cured by radiation because the dose of X-rays required to kill the cancer cells would also kill the patient.” John Lee et. al. (in What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Breast Cancer) wrote: “Radiation reduces (breast cancer) death by 13.2 percent, it increases death from other causes, mostly heart disease by 21.2 percent. The obvious conclusion is: the treatment was a success but the patient died!”

Dr. Seymour Brenner, a radiologist from Brooklyn, New York, said: “After thirty-nine years, I have see no significant progress … I see millions of people dying in five years … I am tired of watching people come to my office and plead for their lives and I have nothing to offer them.

Dr. Ralph Moss (in The Cancer Industry) wrote: “Radiation therapy appears to be of limited value in the treatment of cancer. There is little controversy over the number of patients being cured by radiotherapy – it is small … Some researchers believe that the use of radiation is not only ineffective but also is possibly harmful ... It is part of a disastrous national policy that has always downplayed the hazards of radiation, while promoting its spread to every corner of the country.

Dr. Francisco Contreras, director of the Oasis of Hope Hospital described radiation as an act of desperation. In his book, Health in the 21st Century: Will Doctors Survive? he wrote: “Radiation therapy, in which we placed so much faith a few decades ago, has proven to be another medical blunder. My brother, Dr. Ernesto Contreras Jr., an oncologist and radio-therapist said, after twenty-five years of medical practice, “It is really frustrating ... The effectiveness of the treatment against cancer is doubtful. I have treated thousands of patients … and I can’t say that more than fifteen percent of them have positive response to an orthodox treatment.”

Gene (not real name) is the fifth child in a family of six girls and two boys. Her eldest sister, the first sibling in the family, was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of twenty-seven. Unfortunately, Gene was also diagnosed with breast cancer at twenty-seven years old.

Gene’s problem started in mid-December 2002, when she found a lump in her right breast. She went to see a surgeon in a private hospital and did a lumpectomy. Gene was given the good news that the lump was not malignant. The histopathology report dated 17 December 2002, stated: “Sclerosing adenosis of the breast with atypical ductal hyperplasia. Advised periodic follow up.” The immuno-histochemical stains were negative for ER, PR, c-erbB2.

About a year after the surgery, Gene noticed that the surgical wound became rather hard and with time started to grow in thickness. Gene consulted another surgeon in another private hospital. An ultrasound of her right breast done on 9 June 2005 showed two lesions, one of which was 9 mm x 7.5 mm x 10 mm in size. The radiologist concluded that these could be malignant and suggested a FNAC study. An ultrasound of the left breast showed a 7 x 2 mm simple cyst.

A tru-cut biopsy was done to the right breast lump on 18 June 2005 and it confirmed the clinical suspicion of malignancy. The lesion was an infiltrating, poorly differentiated mammary ductal carcinoma, probably Grade 3. An ultrasound of the abdomen and chest X-ray did not show any abnormality.

Gene went back to the first surgeon who did her lumpectomy and underwent a right mastectomy with axillary clearance. The subsequent histopathology report dated 24 June 2005, confirmed previous diagnosis of infiltrating ductal carcinoma – Schirrhous type with tubular pattern, Grade 2. The cancer was staged as T1bN1Mo. The adjacent breast tissue was found to be fibrocystic with sclerosing adenosis. The resected margins, areola and nipple were clear of any tumour tissues. One of the ten axillary lymph nodes was affected. The axillary fat was also found to be infiltrated by malignant tumour.

Gene underwent adjuvant chemotherapy in mid-July 2005. The first four cycles consisted of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. This treatment, completed in mid-September 2005, was followed by four cycles of Formoxol (an international brand name of paclitaxel, marketed in Malaysia). Each cycle of chemotherapy was given every three weeks. Gene suffered severe side effects such as vomiting, breathlessness, lack of strength and pains throughout her body. When asked if she would want to go for more chemotherapy, Gene shook her head vigorously with disapproval. She had developed a phobia for injection.

After the completion of chemotherapy on 7 December 2005, Gene underwent twenty radiation treatments onto her chest well. This treatment started on 29 December 2005 and lasted until 27 January 2006. Gene felt “hot” inside her body during the radiotherapy. Fortunately she did suffer much side effects during chemotherapy.

With the completion of the above treatments, Gene was happy believing that the cancer has at last been “conquered.” She went back to her oncologist and surgeon for routine check up. Ultrasound reports of 9 May 2006 and 8 November 2006, confirmed absence of any abnormality in her abdomen. A bone scan report dated 28 August 2006, confirmed “no evidence of MDP avid skeletal metastasis.” Blood test results of 8 November 2006 and 13 February 2007 showed CEA, CA 125 and CA 15.3 to be within normal limits. Her liver function values done on 8 November 2006 showed normal values.

However, Gene started to sense problem by February 2007 – barely a year after her apparent “successful” treatment. Both her buttock and backbone were hurting. An ultrasound on 2 April 2007 showed a 5 mm x 6 mm nodule at 9 o’clock position of her left breast. The surgeon proceeded to remove this lump and found it not malignant.

CT scan done on 16 June 2007 showed disturbing and distressing features. There was a 0.5 cm nodule in the left thyroid. There were also hypodense lesions seen in the posterior aspect of the right 6th rib, vertebral body of L2, left iliac crest, left iliac bone and the neck of the right femur.

MRI of the pelvis on 18 June 2007 indicated lesion in the mid 3rd medial right ilium, left anterior superios iliac spine, right and left body of S2 vertebrae, head of right femur and intertrochanter region of left femur.

The general impression of the CT scan and MRI finding was that of multiple bony metastases. This was further collaborated by a bone scan report dated 19 June 2007 which reads: “Increased uptake of tracer in the L2 vertebrae is due to MDP avid skeletal metastasis. Increase uptake of tracer seen in L3, L4 and L5 vertebrae is metabolically active lesion, most likely due to DXT. Increased uptake of tracer seen in left anterior superior iliac spine is likely due to muscle attachment.”

Since Gene suffered pains, she underwent palliative radiotherapy. After seven treatments, there was less pain. She has five more radiation sessions to go. The oncologist wanted to give Gene more chemotherapy but she declined and came to seek our help. Gene came to our centre on a wheel chair since she had difficulty walking due to pains. She was prescribed Capsule A, Breast M, Bone tea and Pain Tea.

Herbs Made Her Well

It was indeed a big surprise for me to see Gene walking into our centre on her own without the need of a wheelchair just five days after her fist visit to us. Gene told us that after taking the herbs for three days, she felt better and had more energy. The pains had lessened significantly to enable her to walk by herself.

Three weeks after her first visit to us, I asked Gene if she was just “play-acting” when she came to see us on a wheelchair. I wanted to know if she was trying to gain “sympathy” from her sisters and husband who came along with her. Gene said that even after seven radiation treatments she had pains that made it difficult for her to move. The pains were real!

Gene came to see us again after three weeks on herbs. She looked radiant. She was getting better! Gene told us that she was able to sleep well. Previously, her sleep was difficult and she was not able to turn her body to the right or left. After the herbs, she was able to turn her body without any problem. Previously, Gene was not able to lean forward when sitting down, after the herbs that problem too went away. Gene said she is getting better with each day. She decided not to go for any more radiotherapy.

Your body is made up of cells, which are the main elements in the tissue that your body uses to create and maintain your organs. When some of these cells grow and divide in improper ways, they can turn cancerous and form into a mass called a tumor. As cells grow old and die within your body they’re replaced with new ones. At least, this is what happens when cells behave as they’re meant to.

When this process of cellular regeneration falters for whatever reason, the cells have nowhere to go and that’s part of the reason they form into these growths. The tumors can be classed as either benign or malignant. Benign tumors are not cancerous although they’re just as scary when found in your body. They aren’t life threatening and can usually be removed easily. Benign tumors do not spread or invade the cells around them. Malignant tumors on the other hand, are cancerous and are definitely bad for your health in all cases. Though they can generally be removed, they sometimes grow back or invade other nearby organs or tissue. This spreading of the malignant cancer cells to other parts of the body is called Metastasis.

With breast cancer, the diseased cells are usually located within the lymph nodes near the infected breast. Breast cancer can spread to other areas of the body as well, with the most common areas being the liver, lungs, brain or bones. This is known as metastasic breast cancer and the cells in the other infected areas are still composed of breast cancer cells. Doctors generally term this sort of tumor migration as, distant metastasic cancer.

Breast cancer has no set type of woman that it attacks. Doctors have no explanation for why some women get the disease while others don’t. However, women with certain risk factors are more likely to develop cancer than women without these factors. Some of these factors can include:

1. A woman’s age is directly proportionate to her chances of developing cancer. Older women are at greater risk, while younger women rarely develop the disease before they reach menopause

2. A family history of cancer will raise the risk factor of developing the disease

3. If a woman has already had the disease in one breast, the chances are high that she will develop cancer in the other one

It is important to remember that women with high risk factors do not always get cancer, just as women who develop breast cancer may not fall into any of the high risk groups. This is why it’s hard to predict who will get this terrible disease and who will be spared. Other than those in higher risk groups, there’s no real way to tell. It’s very important to have yourself screened for the disease before any symptoms develop. The earlier that this cancer is caught, the sooner it can be treated and the more likely it is that you’ll survive the disease. If you have any breast pain or any other symptom of the disease, don’t panic. Many similar symptoms are attributed to many other problems and are generally not cancerous.