Breast forms can be useful for a number of reasons. They have been identified as an important alternative to reconstructive surgery post mastectomy surgery. Reconstructive surgery is less advantageous because it requires more surgery. Not only must a patient go through one reconstructive surgery, but further operations may be required in the future. Also, for cancer patients, if doctors find that the cancer has advanced, breast reconstruction may interfere with the treatment. Not to mention the common side effects implants may have. With some implants, most commonly saline implants, Capsular Contracture may occur (Imaginis- the Breast Cancer Resource). This is when the scar around the implant begins to tighten and squeezes down on the soft implant inside. This can have a negative effect by causing the breast to feel hard. These are just a few reasons why reconstructive surgery is sometimes frowned upon. Surgery can, however have its positive aspects. A lot of times you can have the reconstructive surgery directly following your mastectomy. This means you would not have to go under the knife twice; they would do this process while you are still under. Implants are also preferred over breast forms because they are permanent and can seem like less of a hassle.

Prosthesis, or breast forms, is an excellent alternative to surgery. They mirror the approximate movement, feel, and weight of natural tissue. It is very important to have a properly weighted breast form because it provides the balance your body needs for correct posture. Very few problems occur when using breast forms. Some have said that they feel a bit heavy at first (American Cancer Society). However, this does fade as you get used to them. Also, some forms may cause some skin irritation. This also can be resolved by putting the breast forms into a bra with a pocket.

Common questions that arise include, what kind of bra would I need to wear with a breast form? The answer is that you can wear any type of bra you prefer. You may even wear the bras you were wearing before mastectomy surgery. Many wonder whether or not others will be able to tell if they are wearing them. Breast forms are very inconspicuous. They are under your clothing and therefore look no different from natural tissue breasts. Aside from the initial heaviness at first, they aren’t even all that noticeable to you, the wearer. Questions are sometimes asked regarding the possibility of wearing the breast forms while swimming in the summer. No problem! Most breast forms do fine in the pool with chlorine. Swimming should not affect them. As far as swimsuits go, there are plenty of suits that will hide the breast forms well. A string-bikini may not be the best choice. However, a suit that covers your chest more fully, would keep them unnoticeable to others.

Overall, we see that there are answers out there. And for those who do not want to go under the knife again, there is a great alternative. Breast forms can fit practically any body type and any lifestyle. The cons of using breast forms are fewer than the cons of getting reconstructive surgery. Breast forms aren’t permanent and can always be changed to fit you. However, both of these options are out there and should be considered. What makes you happy and comfortable should come first and foremost.

Truekare is an online retailer of high quality silicone breast forms. Find out more about us at truekare.com Truekare Breast Forms.

Related posts

• Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer (0)
• Loosing the Breast Cancer War Part 3 (0)
• Loosing The Breast Cancer War - Part 2 (0)
• Loosing The Breast Cancer War - Part 1 (0)
• Inflammatory Breast Cancer (0)

Tags: breast cancer, cancer patient, mastectomy

Although in most cases thoughts turn to surgery when it comes to curing prostate cancer, surgery is not the only answer to this problem and one popular alternative is hormonal therapy.

If prostate cancer is confined to the prostate gland itself then the surgical removal of the prostate gland is invariably the quickest, simplest and best method of treatment. However, where cancer has started to spread outside the prostate gland and, in particular, where it has spread throughout the body along the lymphatic system, many patients find that hormonal therapy is a treatment well worth considering. By targeting and reducing the quantity of the male hormone testosterone in the body, hormonal therapy literally cuts off the supply that prostate cancer feeds on to grow and spread.

Amongst the drugs commonly used for hormonal treatment is DES (diethistibestrol) which has similar properties to the female hormone estrogen. DES has the advantage of reducing many of the symptoms of prostate cancer and of prolonging life. However, it does also have a number of side effects including virtually eliminating any sex drive, reducing body hair, causing breast enlargement and, in some cases, producing scrotal shrinkage.

In more advanced cases of prostate cancer LH-RH agonists (such as Leuprolide and Goserelin) can also be used to regulate the release of testosterone into the bloodstream. A synthetic pituitary hormone, this treatment creates an initial surge of testosterone followed by a dramatic decrease to starve the cancer of its essential food. The drug is normally administered either by injection or the implantation of slow release pellets and side effects include occasional hot flushes, headaches and impotence.

One further drug in common use is Flutamide which is an antiandrogen which inhibits the action of testosterone on cancer cells. Although Flutamide can be used in isolation, it is normally used in conjunction with other hormonal drugs as pain relief in cases of advanced prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer treatment is not however limited to just surgery or hormonal therapy and other methods include immunotherapy, chemotherapy, radiation therapy and of course a range of natural cures.

So, if you are facing the problem of dealing with prostate cancer don’t simply assume that surgery is your only option. Talk to you doctor and explore the wide range of options available before deciding on the best course of treatment.

For prostatecancerexplained.com/articles/there-is-more-treatment-for-the-condition-of-prostate-cancer-than-just-surgery.html” target=”_blank more treatment for the condition of prostate cancer and to learn about such things as a range of prostatecancerexplained.com” target=”_blank prostate cancer cures please visit ProstateCancerExplained.com

Related posts

• Your Guide To Prostate Cancer And Natural Treatment (0)
• Worried About Getting Prostate Cancer -Think Living Foods (0)
• What You Must Know To Make An Informed Decision About Prostate Cancer Treatments (0)
• What You Must Know If You Suspect Prostate Cancer - From A Nurse (0)
• Ways to Detect Prostate Cancer and How It Can Be Treated (0)

Tags: cancer treatment, chemotherapy, prostate cancer

It seems to us that we are living in a cancer epidemic in the United States. Both of us have lost parents to cancer, and we have been losing more and more relatives and friends to cancer. Based on our own sad experience, we were driven to carry out research on the impacts of cancer in the U.S. over the period 1975 to 2003. This study assesses the U.S. cancer program, as guided by the National Cancer Institute, by examining three basic measures of that program: 1) the cancer incidence rate; 2) the cancer mortality rate; and 3) the probability of getting cancer for an American male or female in their lifetime. The basic data series were obtained from NCI’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program.

The findings of our research on the impacts of cancer on Americans are grim and shocking. Since 1975, the effects of cancer on people have been continuously and steadily worsening – with the following dismal outcomes of the three measures:

Cancer Incidence

The reported age-adjusted cancer incidence rate of Americans getting cancer in 2003 was 460 people per 100,000. This was in stark contrast to 400 people per 100,000 in 1975. This reveals a significant worsening of cancer incidence in the U.S. over time. In actual numbers, this means that 1.3 million Americans got cancer in 2003 as compared to 864,540 in 1975. This bleak situation is even worse because of the delays in the reporting of cancer cases (Clegg et.al., 2002). As a result of these delays, the reported cancer incidence in 2003 is an underestimate of the correct incidence, which we have calculated to be 494 per 100,000 people getting cancer; and the total number of Americans getting cancer now increases to 1.4 million people.

Over the period of analysis, 1975-2003, the reported cancer incidence rate increased at an average annual rate of 0.5 percent. This positive growth rate means that the number of people diagnosed with cancer every year was increasing faster than the population of the country. Moreover, this rate will be higher with the adjusted incidence numbers for the delayed reporting of cancer cases (particularly for 1993 to 2003). In addition, the total number of Americans affected by cancer increased every year (1975-2003) by 1.6 percent (also an underestimate).

Cancer Mortality

During each of the 25 years since 1975 – until 2001 – more Americans died from cancer, per 100,000, than in 1975. Also, many more Americans died from cancer in 2003 – 553,244 – than in 1975 – 430,002. Furthermore, we surmise that the number of cancer mortality rates reported by SEER/NCI are underestimates due to the likely misses of cancer death cases when they are marked in the IMMEDIATE CAUSE section of the death certificate rather than the UNDERLYING CAUSE section; this shortcoming can be a substantial one.

It is a very disturbing fact that the number of Americans who have been losing their lives to cancer, in the 1990s and the 2000s – on a daily basis – reached the count of a World Trade Center tower at 1,500 people. This number translates into 63 Americans dying from cancer every hour of the day – which means 1 American dies from cancer every minute. These are indeed grim statistics, attributable to the failure of the cancer program.

The total number of people in the U.S. who lost their lives to cancer also increased annually at a rate of 0.9 percent (1975-2003). The dismal result of these increases was that at the end of the period, 2003, many more people were dying from cancer than died in 1975.

Over the period of analysis (1975-2003), a total of 33 million Americans were afflicted by cancer. Even this is an underestimate, due to delayed reporting of cancer cases, and the actual number would be considerably higher. During the same period, a total of 15 million Americans lost their lives to cancer. The ratio between these two numbers provides an approximation of those who die in relation to those afflicted by cancer – at 45 percent. Almost half of those who get cancer will eventually die from it.

Probability of Getting Cancer

With regard to one’s chances of getting cancer, as of 2002, American males faced a staggering probability that is close to 50 percent of contracting cancer in their lifetime, while American females were facing a 42 percent probability of getting cancer in their lifetime. Moreover, these probabilities have been getting worse over time. By contrast, the probability in 1975-1977 for an American man or woman of contracting cancer was 34 percent. This was already a high number – which became even higher over time. Furthermore, the probabilities – particularly in the 1990s and 2000s – are underestimates since cancer probabilities are calculated from cancer incidence rates and these rates are underestimates as a result of reporting delays.

Cancer in the News

Despite data shortcomings that result in significant underestimates of cancer statistics, the existing cancer data show a dismal situation with respect to cancer prevention and cancer treatment. The grim statistics are typically not depicted in the news media. Over the years, the media has focused on news portraying small numbers of deaths, from diseases like the bird flu, and have ignored the horrendous fact that millions of Americans with cancer have died, and continue to die, from cancer. In addition, they have focused on short periods of time that give misleading results.

Conclusions and Recommendations

If the cancer program worked, positive benefits to Americans would have been shown by a decrease in the cancer incidence rate and the mortality rate, from their levels in 1975. In addition, the probability of getting cancer in one’s lifetime would have decreased. That did not happen; on the contrary, the numbers increased across all measures. Even a rudimentary evaluation of the costs of the NCI compared to the benefits obtained by the American people would conclude that it has been a horribly inefficient use of national funds.

A single main recommendation arises from the big and continuing failure of the NCI cancer program: The National Cancer Institute to be drastically restructured and its programs to be significantly changed, in order to develop and make effective programs of prevention and programs of treatment of cancer. The American people have been paying too high a price – with their lives – for an extremely misguided and ineffective cancer program.

———————-

Note: The detailed results of our research are presented in a larger report (pdf) with the same title. The report is available at the following website:

Related posts

• Lung Cancer Prevention (0)
• The Law Of Attraction And Cancer (0)
• The Big News About Herbal Treatment For Prostate Cancer (0)
• Nutritional Cancer Support (0)
• Natural Health Therapies and Cancer - Part II (0)

Tags: cancer prevention, cancer treatment, treatment of cancer

Lung cancer has long been associated as a killer of men but now it has passed breast cancer as the number one killing cancer of women. The American Cancer Society states that women are 1.5 times more likely to get lung cancer than men. Studies also show that African American women are more likely to get lung cancer than white women.

While smoking is a leading cause of lung cancer to smokers, secondhand smoke also causes lung cancer and coronary heart disease to nonsmokers. There are about 20% of the women diagnosed with lung cancer who have never smoked (American Cancer Society). Some factors besides secondhand smoke includes: exposure to radon or asbestos, inhaling toxic chemicals or minerals, or just being genetically predisposed to getting it. However, the upside is that nonsmokers do generally respond positively to the treatments given for their cancer.

Lung cancer is caused by certain cells in the body malfunctioning and dividing abnormally. These cells end up producing excessive tissue that turns into a tumor. There are non-small cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer. Both types are treated differently.

So, how do you know if you may have lung cancer? Some signs include: labored breathing, wheezing, shortness of breath, excessive, persistent coughing, an increase in phlegm, a change in the phlegm’s color or bloody phlegm, pain in the back, chest, or shoulder area, and swelling in the face and neck. If you have any of these signs, see a doctor immediately.

If you are a smoker, your chances of getting lung cancer are greatly reduced when you quit smoking. The American Cancer Society states that in the last 30 years, the cure rate for lung cancer has doubled.

While the stakes are higher for women smokers, quitting today will lower your chances of getting lung cancer. However, if you should still get lung cancer, quitting smoking would greatly increase your survival rate. Be aware of changes you can make in your lifestyle and environment to help keep yourself safe from this disease.

Tina Seay is the author, webmaster of LearnSomethingToday.com LearnSomethingToday.com a great resource website with health articles, fitness tips, recipes, financial advice and so much more.

Related posts

• What You Should Know About Breast Cancer (0)
• What Every Woman Should Know About Breast Cancer (0)
• What Causes Brain Cancer? (0)
• Veggies for Breast Health? The Breast Cancer/Vegetable Connection (0)
• Uterus Cancer: How Dangerous is It? (0)

Tags: breast cancer, lung cancer