Elizabeth Edwards diagnosed with invasive ductal breast cancer

Elizabeth Edwards has been diagnosed with breast cancer. She has invasive ductal cancer, which is the most common type, comprising 80% of all breast cancers.

Essentially, surgical therapy would be required for all invasive cancers. Whether this is a mastectomy or lumpectomy plus radiation therapy (i.e. breast conserving therapy – BCT) would depend on several factors. The obvious obstacle to BCT would be the in-breast recurrence of cancer following BCT – estimated to be between 10 and 15 percent. Thus, patient selection is critical in choosing the appropriate surgical method. Tumor characteristics, spread and size all affect candidacy. In appropriate patients, studies have shown an equivalence in survival rates.

What happens after surgery? That depends on what is found. Chemotherapy is required in those with spread to the lymph nodes, and for those with tumors larger than 1cm. If the tumor is hormone-receptor positive, Tamoxifen for 5 years is required.

Prognosis for women with early stage disease would vary according to tumor size and spread. The 5-year survival rates for lymph nodes negative, 1-3 positive, and >4 positive are as follows:

Tumors less than 2cm: 96, 87, and 66 percent, respectively
Tumors between 2-5cm: 89, 88, and 59 percent
Tumors greater than 5cm: 82, 73, and 49 percent.

Breast cancer screening should certainly be a part of routine health care: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening mammography, with or without clinical breast examination (CBE), every 1-2 years for women aged 40 and older.

Breast cancer is a tragic, but beatable disease – especially if caught at an early stage. I wish Mrs. Edwards all the best.

email

  • GasPundit

    Mammography recently has fallen into question, at least as we know it. Mammograms are notoriously difficult to interpret. On my radiology rotation, I just laughed the first time I saw one; how in the heck could you see anything????? The sensitivity and specificity are also not ideal. Alas, with nothing else out there, it’s the best we’ve got, and it’s unquestionably saved many lives.

    But there is something better, albeit much more expensive: MRI. Remember, a tumor has statistically lived much of its “life” by the time it’s palpable or visible on a mamogram. So what if you could catch it MUCH earlier, in a rather definitive way? MRI’s are offering a lot of hope towards this end. The cost though of using MRI as a screening tool is prohibitive. It’s still several years out, but it’s a maelstrom of effectiveness versus finance on the horizon.

  • Anonymous

    One important point to note: Remember Elizabeth Edwards went nuts a few years back when her son died and went on a hormonal binge in order to conceive at a ridiculously advanced age. I’m sure her OB-GYN obliged with her and her crazy husband’s request in order to avoid being sued for “ageism” or some other reason. I think it would be reasonable to conjecture that the unjudicious use of fertility drugs years ago might possibly be a contributor to her breast cancer diagnosis at this time. In light of such questions along with all the reports of problems with in-vitro fertilized kids’ health as they age, I think it is time to suspend indefinitely the entire “test-tube baby” experimentation. If nature has decided that you (for whatever reason) will not conceive a child, I think it is very wise to concede the issue rather than trying to procreate against (or in spite of) nature.

  • Anonymous

    God, that guy who commented just above me is an ass.

    my question is, though – how long, realistically, might she have?

  • Anonymous

    MRI’s are used routinely to determine if someone really has a cancerous lump in my neck of the woods – and I am definitely what I would consider a backwoods area.

    Also, the hormone theory as a cause of Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer may have no basis unless it was “receptor positive” – and then maybe not. And do you know biopsy surgery on some types of lumps can cause you to “get” cancer.

    There are so many factors when people are trying to second guess or treat cancers today. All we can do is pray they can stop the spread of this latest cancer and she and all the rest living with cancer get the best treatment available.

    Wishing you the best, Elizabeth.

    PS
    I could not see the WORD VERIFICATION in my internet explorer and had to use mozilla to post.

  • Anonymous

    As a woman going through chemotherapy for Stage II breast cancer right now, I’m curious as to what stage her cancer was when she was first diagnosed in 2004 and what her risks of recurrence were given the treatment she did. I saw where she said she was “clean” a few years after treatment, although I know it hadn’t been 5 years.

    I’ll be wishing her the best and following her situation closely.

  • Anonymous

    I, too, wonder about the hormone receptors, the stage of the original cancer, and what treatment that she had. Was it in the nodes?

  • Anonymous

    I have to agree that there seems to be a strong likelihood that Elizabeth Edwards’ fertility treatments may have played a role in the development of her cancer. It is well known that even standard hormone-replacement therapy routinely given to postmenopausal women can stimulate cancer growth…doesn’t it make sense that taking powerful fertility drugs could pose a risk? I am not judging the Edwards’ for their choices, and I do believe that to do so would be wrong; we all have a right to do with our lives what we want to do. However, I think it just makes sense, in thinking about the horror that a cancer diagnosis would be, to ask ourselves how we can do everything possible to avoid it. It just seems to me that working within the ebb and flow of nature, rather than trying to control it, is the sensible and healthy thing to do. I feel that there is a lot we can do to avoid disease if we just use common sense….not smoking, not eating too much, not overworking or overstressing, and definitely not playing games with our natural body chemistry through drugs. As most women know, female hormones are powerful chemicals that exert an influence on all of our body systems, and they ebb and flow throughout life according to a natural plan. For a 50-year-old woman to be taking drugs to try to turn herself into a 30-year-old woman is, to say the least, questionable. To say the most, it’s dangerous and unwise. I feel for Elizabeth and wish her the best, but I think if there is any chance at all that her cancer could have been avoided through her own choices, this is a lesson we should be learning from her case.

  • Jeffrey Dach MD

    Fibrocystic Breast Disease, the Iodine Deficiency Connection

    A good friend of ours just went through an ordeal with breast cancer. The incidence of breast cancer has increased to 1 in 8 women, with 4,000 new cases weekly.

    You might ask, could there be a preventive measure which is safe, cheap and widely available that has been overlooked?

    The answer is YES , and it’s the essential mineral, Iodine, which was added to table salt in 1924 as part of a national program to prevent Goiter. It turns out that this same Iodine in table salt is the key to breast cancer prevention as proposed by the following list of prestigious doctors:

    Guy Abraham, MD, Robert Derry MD PHD, David Brownstein MD, George Flechas MD, Donald Miller, M.D.

    Dr. B.A. Eskin published 80 papers over 30 years researching iodine and breast cancer, and he reports that iodine deficiency causes breast cancer and thyroid cancer in humans and animals. Iodine deficiency is also known to cause a pre-cancerous condition called fibrocystic breast disease.

    W.R. Ghent published a paper in 1993 which showed iodine supplementation works quite well to reverse and resolve fibrocystic changes of the breast, and this is again the subject of a current clinical study.(Can J Surg. 1993 Oct;36(5):453-60.)

    Despite its obvious potential, not much has been done with Iodine treatment over the past 40 years in the United States. Since iodine isn’t patentable and is therefore unlikely to be profitable to market, there is no money to fund studies for “FDA approval”. However, FDA approval is not required since Iodine is already an additive to table salt at the supermarket.

    For more information see my newsletter

    Jeffrey Dach MD

Trending