Stefanie Spielman, Cancer Fighter, Dies at 42

[I Need help too]

I dont know if any of you followed her story, fight, and work, but she passed away yesterday.

 

 

Here are a couple of links about her story fighting Breast Cancer. She leaves behind 4 children

 

As a buckeye I have meet the family serveral times through different events. I live a block or so away from the family and saw them on Trick-or- Treat night and she didnt look so good, but they all had smiles on their faces.

 

 

http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/sto...an.html?sid=102

 

http://www2.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/local/artic...t_age_42/26925/

[TeeSharice]

and yet.....

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/juggle/2009/11/19/new...smay-or-relief/

 

 

New Breast-Cancer Screening Guidelines: Confusion, Dismay or Relief?

 

 

 

For many women over 40, part of the regular routine has long involved heading to the doctor once a year for a mammogram and to be told to perform regular breast self-exams to help detect breast cancer. Now, as we all have heard, that advice has been upended by new guidelines released by an influential government-funded panel.

 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines state that routine mammograms aren’t necessary for women of average cancer risk in their 40s, and that women between 50 and 74 years old don’t need to undergo mammograms more often than every other year, according to the WSJ. They also recommend that physicians abstain from teaching women how to examine their breasts for signs of cancer because of a lack of evidence that it is of any benefit.

 

The task force said the new guidelines strike a better balance between the benefits of early cancer detection and the unnecessary anxiety and extra costs associated with false positives, which sometimes result from the tests, the WSJ reported.

 

The news has been met with confusion, dismay, and in some cases relief, by many women, physicians and cancer-advocacy groups. Many fear that the new guidelines, if followed, could lead to fewer cases of early detection of the often-deadly cancer and could cause problems with insurance coverage for screenings. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius tried to dispel concerns Wednesday that the new guidelines threaten insurance coverage for the procedure, amid a growing debate among patients, medical professionals and legislators. Many doctors also have said that they would stay the course and continue to offer their patients annual screens.

 

While many people I know are upset about the guidelines—citing examples of loved ones whose lives were saved by early detection—a small minority say they are quietly relieved. Mammograms and even breast-self exams can be stressful, especially when there is a false positive. About one-third of U.S. women in their 40s and older aren’t getting mammograms even every other year, according to CDC data.

 

I know this topic isn’t a typical Juggle subject, but taking care of our health and that of our loved ones is a crucial part of our routines (as some of our commenters previously noted.) And as anyone knows who has had breast cancer or cared for a loved one with the disease, the experience can be hugely debilitating and time-consuming. Without this turning into a political debate, what has been your reaction to the guidelines? Have any of you or your loved ones faced breast cancer? How was it detected?

[I Need help too]

I think they should have left this alone Tee...

 

Take the example I posted, she was 30 when she found it.

[TeeSharice]

I think they should have left this alone Tee...

 

Take the example I posted, she was 30 when she found it.

 

 

Oh dont worry, today it was announced that they feel the same about cervical cancer

 

 

had not been for a pap smear when I was 16, no telling if Id be here to complain

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...2C8CoZGj2klruGw

 

New cervical cancer screening guidelines issued

 

(AFP) – 2 hours ago

 

WASHINGTON — Days after controversy erupted over new breast cancer screening guidelines, a US health group has said women should wait longer to get their first cervical cancer test.

 

The New York Times reported Friday that the American College of Obstetricians is now advising women to wait until age 21 to get their first Pap smear.

 

The advice is intended to cut down on unneccesary testing and reduce the risk of harmful invasive procedures to remove non-cancerous lesions that may show up on tests but often disappear if left alone, the group said.

 

The new recommendations overturn previous guidance, which suggested women should be tested yearly starting within three years of their first sexual intercourse.

 

In addition to waiting longer for a first test, the group said women over 30 with three consecutive normal test results can wait for three years before their next Pap.

 

The advice is likely to stir fierce debate as it comes shortly after controversial new guidelines for breast cancer screening that said women should get fewer mammograms.

 

That advice was roundly rejected by many in the medical community and US Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the recommendations would not be binding.

 

Cheryl Iglesia, the chairwoman of a panel that developed the cervical screening guidelines, told the Times that the timing was an unfortunate coincidence.

 

"There's no political agenda with regard to these recommendations," she said.

 

Her group has actually opposed cutting mammograms, but warns that overuse of Pap tests can result in doctors performing unnecessary and potentially harmful surgeries to remove non-cancerous cervical abnormalities that are commonly found in young women.

 

The two sets of guidelines have stirred an added level of controversy coming as they do while President Barack Obama's administration is attempting to push through health care reform.

 

Republicans have argued that such recommendations would become mandatory if Obama's reform efforts pass, a charge roundly rejected by Democrats.

[Islandgal]

and yet.....

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/juggle/2009/11/19/new...smay-or-relief/

 

 

New Breast-Cancer Screening Guidelines: Confusion, Dismay or Relief?

 

 

 

For many women over 40, part of the regular routine has long involved heading to the doctor once a year for a mammogram and to be told to perform regular breast self-exams to help detect breast cancer. Now, as we all have heard, that advice has been upended by new guidelines released by an influential government-funded panel.

 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines state that routine mammograms aren’t necessary for women of average cancer risk in their 40s, and that women between 50 and 74 years old don’t need to undergo mammograms more often than every other year, according to the WSJ. They also recommend that physicians abstain from teaching women how to examine their breasts for signs of cancer because of a lack of evidence that it is of any benefit.

 

The task force said the new guidelines strike a better balance between the benefits of early cancer detection and the unnecessary anxiety and extra costs associated with false positives, which sometimes result from the tests, the WSJ reported.

 

The news has been met with confusion, dismay, and in some cases relief, by many women, physicians and cancer-advocacy groups. Many fear that the new guidelines, if followed, could lead to fewer cases of early detection of the often-deadly cancer and could cause problems with insurance coverage for screenings. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius tried to dispel concerns Wednesday that the new guidelines threaten insurance coverage for the procedure, amid a growing debate among patients, medical professionals and legislators. Many doctors also have said that they would stay the course and continue to offer their patients annual screens.

 

While many people I know are upset about the guidelines—citing examples of loved ones whose lives were saved by early detection—a small minority say they are quietly relieved. Mammograms and even breast-self exams can be stressful, especially when there is a false positive. About one-third of U.S. women in their 40s and older aren’t getting mammograms even every other year, according to CDC data.

 

I know this topic isn’t a typical Juggle subject, but taking care of our health and that of our loved ones is a crucial part of our routines (as some of our commenters previously noted.) And as anyone knows who has had breast cancer or cared for a loved one with the disease, the experience can be hugely debilitating and time-consuming. Without this turning into a political debate, what has been your reaction to the guidelines? Have any of you or your loved ones faced breast cancer? How was it detected?

 

 

I'm not sure how me and my boobs feel about this yet, the self-exam bullcrap made me want to do this ...I've prob posted here several times about finding lumps in breasts in my late teens,starting mammograms much earlier than most women have to, having to fight my health insurance to get a Breast MRI covered (there are some things mammograms will not show as well as a Breast MRI will) and lest we forget, BC is not limited to men only...I also heard (but haven't verified yet) that there were no BC medical specialist on that panel, but there were several people from Health Insurance companies.. so truth be told, I think I'm a little po'd...I'll come back to this shortly, as I have some trolls to slay today..

Edited November 20, 2009 by Kiowa

[baby duck]

My mother was 55 when she died of an extremely aggressive form of breast cancer. Her mother had a double mastectomy at some point in her life (I remember the special bra). The insurance company won't cover DNA testing for my sister because none of our aunts have had breast cancer, that we know of. I'm nursing the last kid right now, but mammograms will begin as soon as he's weaned. And if I can't get my insurance to cover DNA testing once I have a baseline mammogram established, I'll probably pay for it out of pocket.

[punkinbee59]

Because of family history of BC, I get my poor boobies squeezed every other year til I hit 50, then it's every year. I had only ONE abnormal pap, due to STD long ago...and had it treated...the doctor told me, if left UNTREATED for a long time, it could turn to something worse: cancer.

 

My sister is damned lucky she caught it early; pre-cancer in her left breast, and she is also pre-cancerous in her reproductive organs...she had two abnormal paps 6 months apart and just had her hysterectomy (no ovaries) just two weeks ago.

 

some women won't have BC in spite of family history

some women have it to lifestyle or diet

some women have it out of the blue, having NO family history of BC.

 

Every women is unique...mammgrams are fine, but if breasts are dense, an MRI makes sense to detect it better.

 

It all really boils down to a woman's intution about her own body and IMO, it's only a guideline, it's not like you can't have mammograms every year or no paps every 6 months....it's not set in stone. who knows~scientists have a funny way of changing their minds every five years...

[minnie aubre]

How sad. 42 is way too young.

 

And regarding the new govt guidelines... they are baffling. I don't know how much we're allowed to say on it, but seriously, I don't get it.

[cocomad]

How sad. 42 is way too young.

 

And regarding the new govt guidelines... they are baffling. I don't know how much we're allowed to say on it, but seriously, I don't get it.

Way too young, so sad for the children and her family.

[I Need help too]

How sad. 42 is way too young.

 

And regarding the new govt guidelines... they are baffling. I don't know how much we're allowed to say on it, but seriously, I don't get it.

Way too young, so sad for the children and her family.

 

 

Yes it is.

 

The Buckeyes wore her initals on their helmets today as well as a pink ribon.

[cocomad]

How sad. 42 is way too young.

 

And regarding the new govt guidelines... they are baffling. I don't know how much we're allowed to say on it, but seriously, I don't get it.

Way too young, so sad for the children and her family.

 

 

Yes it is.

 

The Buckeyes wore her initals on their helmets today as well as a pink ribon.

WOW, what a wonderful thing for them to do, for this brave fighter!!!

Edited November 22, 2009 by cocomad

[I Need help too]

How sad. 42 is way too young.

 

And regarding the new govt guidelines... they are baffling. I don't know how much we're allowed to say on it, but seriously, I don't get it.

Way too young, so sad for the children and her family.

 

 

Yes it is.

 

The Buckeyes wore her initals on their helmets today as well as a pink ribon.

WOW, what a wonderful thing for them to do, for this brave fighter!!!

 

Thats the buckeyes for you Her husband played for the Buckeyes before he went into the NFL and left when the first found the cancer. He has been by her side every since.

[cocomad]

How sad. 42 is way too young.

 

And regarding the new govt guidelines... they are baffling. I don't know how much we're allowed to say on it, but seriously, I don't get it.

Way too young, so sad for the children and her family.

 

 

Yes it is.

 

The Buckeyes wore her initals on their helmets today as well as a pink ribon.

WOW, what a wonderful thing for them to do, for this brave fighter!!!

 

Thats the buckeyes for you Her husband played for the Buckeyes before he went into the NFL and left when the first found the cancer. He has been by her side every since.

I am so sad for them; wish we could find a cure for this; I lost my Mom to cancer in 1998 so I feel for family and people with cancer, I know what they are going through.

[nothingtolose]

I think they should have left this alone Tee...

 

Take the example I posted, she was 30 when she found it.

 

 

Oh dont worry, today it was announced that they feel the same about cervical cancer

 

I was so furious when I saw it earlier. The cervical cancer release explicitly said that costs played a part in the discussion and they want to get more women who never get screened to come and get screened, so who cares if it comes at the expense of missing some aggressively growing cancers in women who will now be screened every 2-3 years. They say that would avoid excessive tx for cancers that may not end up being life-threatening or are likely to be slow-growing. Guess the unlucky few patients with unscreened aggressive cancers are going to get stuck with those negative outcomes of advanced cancers or $$$s of dollars in denied claims, just so the new, more cost-effective, more equitable recommendations can be considered widely accepted enough to apply to Medicaid/gov insurance.

 

*end of rant*

Edited November 22, 2009 by nothingtolose