Dana Reeves Cancer

[ginnyde]

On GMA today, it was mentioned that she had a very fast moving form of cancer. She never had surgery, just chemo and I think radiation. This sounds like SCLC which I understood to only happen to smokers. Any opinions?

[Cindy RN]

I have to deal with this everytime someone finds out mine is sclc. I smoked-my hubby is an insulater (yes he works with asbestos at times) now for more than 20 yrs. I wash the laundry. Who knows what actually causes it. I am sure there are several things in combo that effect us differently.

Genetics I believe has a lot to do with it. My mom and her mother and dad. All my moms mothers sisters died from one type of Ca or another. It seems to run in families. Some of us were smokers others not. Most were raised on farms-the chemicals used???????????? I just know it can strike anyone-

Sad to see her go after all she did for her husband.

Cindy

[Nancy B]

I have had both nsclc and sclc. I quit smoking 20 years ago, never around 2nd hand smoke. I grew up in Missouri which has a high incidence of Radon in the ground. I live in smog filled LA. I was on hormone replacement therapy (estrogen) for 12 years. Who knows? My first surgeon told me that "some people are just cancer makers".

[gerbil runner]

0ne thing to keep in mind is that past figures for smoking were very high. So if someone gets lung cancer today, chances are excellent that the patient was exposed to cigarette smoke - first or second-hand - at some time. The real question, which we don't know and nobody is asking, is what would the rate of lc be without any exposure to cigarettes at all?

If someone who quit smoking 30 years ago gets lc, why is it assumed smoking is the cause and not possible radon exposure? Or genentics? Or other chemicals?

As long as smoking gets the blame, we'll never know for sure.

[joanie55]

What I'm hearing today is that her cancer was caused by Radon, which to me sounds bizzar, since how could that even be determined?

[J.C.]

I already posted this somewhere all about

cancer and causes.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/file ... index.html

Hope it opens.

Jackie

[stephnewyork34]

Lance Armstrong was on CNN last night talking about statistics with some doctor...and I can't remember exactly what he siad but it was something to the effect of....not to listen to stats because they are just that and to live everyday and deal with what you are delt...esepcially with Cancer...like mom was told she was going to die quickly and she forced them to do surgery..beating the stats for a while..

I think the point was that no one can tell anyone when they will go and which cancer moves faster and such..it seems so random for everyone....

let me do a search and see if I can find a link to the transcript..because it made sense. I have seen so many people with AIDS die and also many live denying all stats.

Also someone said that now her and Chris are together.. that would be nice if this was just another chapter in their love story. I just feel bad for their son.

[hollyanne]

She definitely could have had non-small cell -- my mom was a non smoker, never had a spot bigger than a dime in her lungs (so no reason for surgery) and did chemo and radiation. It took her in less than six months...almost the same timing as Dana. So sad.

[Connie B]

I'm going to guess she was a stage IV Non Small Cell. We all know they detect our cancer mostly in the late stage. This would also indicate no surgery if she was a stage IV. We have no idea how much her cancer had spread. And we all know some of us make it and some of us don't even when people are dx.d the same.

[jang]

Katie,

Thanks for this link. Some great information here.

[kim]

Thanks Katie for the video link. It was so nice to here someone say it on national tv, that you don't have to smoke to get it, and for me that it is the #1 cancer killer and the least funded. I am always telling people these things, and sometimes I feel like they think I'm just blowing smoke!!

[john]

Joannie,

There is pretty good evidence that radon causes lung cancer based on way too many uranium miners getting lung cancer and based on studies of homes with high radon levels.

I think based on this and ruling out other things it was a highly likely cause. But as people have said on here I think it is almost impossible to know 100% unless you could run unethical experiments on prisoners.

Expose half to randon at differnt levels, don't expose the other half and control as many variables as possible and then get accurate family histories, genetic analysis, etc

Even then there maybe a very small chance it is something else or a combination of things. Do 100% of people get LC after a high enough exposure? Of the 1/2% that does not get LC why are they different

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/radon

[eppie]

Considering Radon contamination happens in airtight buildings...I should feel grateful that I live in a drafty house except that my FIL lived here in this very house for over 30 years and he died of lung cancer in 1999.

I wish there was a clear cut answer as to what causes cancer. The scary thing is that we tell addicted smokers that they must quit or they will get this cancer and then they do quit. But 20 years later they get lung cancer. That is so unfair. My dad smoked over 25 years ago. Lived in the south where Radon is not so clealy a factor...but he did work for Exxon and around hydrocarbons, asbestos and other cancer causing chemicals. My concern is how much does the public really think about exposure to cancer causing chemicals in their workplaces and in the products they use daily in the home?

Much love,

Eppie