Tuesday, June 1, 2010

2 years mark




I see my oncologist, Dr. Dormady, every 3 months. He is only 3 years older than me and always very cheerful. I like going to see him. I had a regular appt with him this morning. He said "Mikiko, you hit the 2 years mark, so that you will have to see me only every 6 months for next 3 years." It's been 2 years since my last chemotherapy. It seems more than 2 years in some aspect, but also, it seems less than 2 years, too. After I see him every 6 months for 3 years, I will see him once a year forever. He said I can come to his retirement party.

I might forget how sick I felt with chemo drugs but I won't forget how confused and helpless I was. Every time I go into his office, I see other cancer patients. I pray for them to do well and get their health back as soon as possible.

Friday, May 28, 2010

Fertility preservation helps women beyond cancer




Nice article on SF chronicle today.

I was involved in Lindsay's organization "Fertile Hope", as her doctor, Dr Lynn Westphal at Stanford was also my doctor. Being diagnosed with cancer is hard enough, but having a fear of unable to have children in the future is also tough. This week 2 years ago was my last chemotherapy treatment. I must say that I'm so proud that I made a right choice to preserve my fertility. When I met Lindsay in person, I thanked her and my tears came out, because what she did changed my life. I hope I could be someone who can encourage young cancer patients.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2010/05/28/MNGB1DIMMC.DTL)

Friday, May 28, 2010 (SF Chronicle)
Fertility preservation helps women beyond cancer
Erin Allday, Chronicle Staff Writer


(05-28) 10:44 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Lindsay Beck had successfully fought
cancer once, but when it returned in 2000, her doctor told her she would
need more aggressive treatment - chemotherapy. He read her a list of
possible side effects but never mentioned that it might leave her sterile.
It was only when Beck asked about it that her doctor said yes, the drugs
would almost definitely attack her ovaries and essentially send her into
early menopause. It might be impossible for her to have children of her
own. Beck was 24.
"He said, 'Let's focus on saving you first. If you're not alive in five
years, having a baby isn't an issue,' " Beck said. "I agreed, of course.
But I thought there must be something I can do now."
There was. Beck's oncologist didn't know it, but through tenacious
research and multiple calls to Bay Area fertility clinics, Beck found a
doctor at Stanford University who was willing to freeze some of her eggs.
Ideally they'd keep for many years, and when Beck was healthy and ready to
start a family, the eggs could be thawed and fertilized.
Fertility preservation is a relatively new but quickly growing field of
medicine, devoted to helping women protect their ability to have children
before starting toxic but lifesaving drug treatments that may damage their
reproductive organs.
Many chemotherapy drugs - especially those used to treat breast cancer -
target fast-growing cells, including the ovarian tissues that ripen and
release eggs. The drugs can shave 10 years off a woman's fertile years.
For women in their 30s, there can be another issue: By the time they're
done with treatment and healthy again, they may be in their 40s, and
conceiving children might be out of reach. Left in the dark
Both UCSF and Stanford have departments dedicated to fertility
preservation, with reproductive experts who work specifically with
patients who have cancer or other diseases that pose a risk to
reproductive organs. But to the frustration of fertility experts and
patients, many women still aren't being told that sterility is a possible
side effect of cancer treatment - and more important, that they may be
able to protect themselves.
The patients whom oncologists see tend to be older and well past having
children, said Dr. Lynn Westphal, a reproductive endocrinologist at
Stanford who froze Beck's eggs.
"So fertility isn't the first thing on their mind," she said. "They're
focused on curing the patient, and that's where their focus should be. But
the patients want to look past their cancer."
To be sure, there are limits to what fertility preservation can
accomplish, and who it can help. Embryos tend to have the best success
rate, as far as resulting in a pregnancy, but they may not be the best
option for women who don't have a partner to fertilize an egg.
The process of harvesting eggs from the ovary usually takes two to four
weeks - involving expensive, daily hormone injections - and some women
diagnosed with cancer are told they need to start chemotherapy
immediately.
Researchers are working to improve a new procedure that involves removing
a small piece of ovarian tissue and freezing it, then transplanting it
back into a woman's body after cancer treatment to reactivate the
reproductive organs.
The advantage is that the procedure can be done right away, and therefore
may be an option for women who don't have time to ready an egg or embryo
for freezing. The disadvantage is that transplanting the tissue may
reintroduce the same cells that caused the initial cancer. Only 10 or so
pregnancies worldwide have resulted from the procedure. Women have options
Still, fertility experts said they're delighted to have options for women
who just a few years ago would almost definitely have lost their ability
to have children after going through cancer treatment.
"One of the most significant long-term implications of cancer treatment is
not being able to build a family and carry on a legacy," said Dr. Mitch
Rosen, director of the UCSF Fertility Preservation Center. "It's like a
double blow. They're cured from the cancer, and then 10 years later, they
can't have a baby, and it's such a significant regret."
Fertility preservation isn't cheap: It can cost $15,000 to freeze eggs or
embryos and $30,000 to freeze ovarian tissue. And very few insurers pay
for preventive fertility therapy. Rosen said he's known women who have
held fundraisers or took out loans to pay for treatment. The Make-a-Wish
Foundation covered the costs of freezing the eggs of one 17-year-old girl,
Rosen said. Source of comfort
UCSF, like Stanford, is now setting up a program to make fertility
preservation procedures affordable for women with cancer.
Beck, the 24-year-old cancer patient, never needed her frozen eggs. She's
34 now, and the Mill Valley woman has had two children who were conceived
naturally. But just knowing that the eggs were waiting for her was a great
source of comfort when she was fighting her cancer, she said.
She created a nonprofit organization to help other women take advantage of
fertility preservation options. Her group, Fertile Hope, was acquired by
Lance Armstrong's LiveStrong foundation last year.
Beck said she was particularly moved into action when she started her
chemotherapy treatment. She was sitting in a clinic with a group of other
young women, all of them hooked up to IVs, and she mentioned she'd just
had her eggs frozen. The other women were shocked - they'd never been told
that their fertility might be at risk, and now it was too late to do
anything.
"I felt really guilty, like I'd kept this secret," she said. "It seemed
ludicrous to me that they didn't know. People were being sterilized
without their knowledge. But there's been a lot of improvement. People are
talking about it now."

Options: More information on fertility preservation. A10
Preserving fertility
Fertility preservation is a field of medicine devoted to helping women
protect their ability to have children before they undergo drug treatments
that may damage their reproductive organs. Procedures involve freezing
eggs, embryos or ovarian tissue, all of which can be preserved for many
years, until a woman is healthy and ready to have children.
Embryo banking: Mature eggs are removed from a woman and fertilized with
sperm. The resulting embryos are frozen for future use.
Egg banking: A woman's ovaries are stimulated to release mature eggs,
which are removed and frozen for future use.
Ovarian tissue banking: Tissue is removed from an ovary and frozen so that
it can be transplanted at a later date. The transplanted tissue can
activate the reproductive organs and kick-start the release of mature
eggs.
Web sites with more information on fertility preservation:
-- UCSF Fertility Preservation Center: www.coe.ucsf.edu/fpc/index.html
-- Stanford Fertility and Reproductive Medicine Center:
www.stanfordivf.com/fertility-preservation.html
-- Oncofertility Consortium at Northwestern University:
www.oncofertility.northwestern.edu
-- Fertile Hope. www.fertilehope.org/

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Winter concert - Stanford Symphonic Chorus



Our winter concert is scheduled on Feb 26(Friday) and 27(Saturday) for Beethoven, Mass in C (also Beethoven Prometheus Overture, & Mozart, Violin Concerto No. 3). Compared to last quarter's Reicha's Requiem, this piece is shorter and more cheerful. Since this is Beethoven, more material is available for practice. We will be busy with 2 nights dress rehearsals next week...

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Mammogram clear!



My annual mammogram was clear. yay! Mammogram pictures are all digitalized from last year,
so that the radiologist can look at the picture right away and tell us if there is anything unusual. (Until few years back, we had to wait for a phone call for 2 or 3 days.) Even though it's only 10 minutes wait until I hear the result, it's uncomfortable and feels like 30 minutes.

However, mammogram is not effective for women in 30s because breast tissue is too dense and picture shows too much activity. The radiologist recommended to my oncologist that I might want to do MRI every two years. My oncologist didn't think it's necessary. He wants me to do self-exam rather than exposing to any radiation. My blood test is good, too.

I'm one step forward to be a survivor.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

New guidelines for breast cancer screening




US task force issued new guidelines for breast cancer screening. Last two days, there have been many discussions between different groups sometimes with anger more than confusion.

They say:
(1) Mammogram is not effective for women in 40s.
(2) Women 50 to 74 should get a mammogram every other year.
(3) The value of breast exams by doctors is unknown. And breast self-exams are of no value.

huh???

Many breast cancer survivor are in shock because we were saved by the early detection guideline. I found my lump by doing self-exam. I have no family history. I'm not a statistics. I'm someone's daughther, someone's sister and someone's lover. Statistics doesn't mean much, does it?

I'm proud that I found the lump. I'm grateful that I had great doctors who were completely thorough.

I don't want to get into too much about politics, but this is CLEARLY a political problem. I hope we can make right health decisions without being denied by insurance company.


This is all I can say to my friends. "You know what you eat. You know about your body. Keep taking good care of yourself. Do whatever you need to do if there is anything unusual."

Today, Lance Armstrong foundation(LIVESTRONG) issued their statement: “We at LIVESTRONG fear that as a result of these new guidelines, more women will be lost to breast cancer."



(Here are the details of new guideline.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
New advice: Skip mammograms in 40s, start at 50

By STEPHANIE NANO and MARILYNN MARCHIONE, Associated Press Writers

Monday, November 16, 2009

(11-16) 18:32 PST New York (AP) --

Most women don't need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50, a government task force said Monday. It's a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position.

Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

For most of the past two decades, the cancer society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40.

But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of survival.

"The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s," said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel.

The new guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies.

But Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, said insurance coverage isn't likely to change because of the new guidelines. No changes are planned in Medicare coverage either, said Dori Salcido, spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services department.

Experts expect the task force revisions to be hotly debated, and to cause confusion for women and their doctors.

"Our concern is that as a result of that confusion, women may elect not to get screened at all. And that, to me, would be a serious problem," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the cancer society's deputy chief medical officer.

The guidelines are for the general population, not those at high risk of breast cancer because of family history or gene mutations that would justify having mammograms sooner or more often.

The new advice says:

_Most women in their 40s should not routinely get mammograms.

_Women 50 to 74 should get a mammogram every other year until they turn 75, after which the risks and benefits are unknown. (The task force's previous guidelines had no upper limit and called for exams every year or two.)

_The value of breast exams by doctors is unknown. And breast self-exams are of no value.

Medical groups such as the cancer society have been backing off promoting breast self-exams in recent years because of scant evidence of their effectiveness. Decades ago, the practice was so heavily promoted that organizations distributed cards that could be hung in the shower demonstrating the circular motion women should use to feel for lumps in their breasts.

The guidelines and research supporting them were released Monday and are being published in Tuesday's issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The new advice was sharply challenged by the cancer society.

"This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over," the society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said in a statement.

The task force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1,300 women in their 50s to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1,900 women in their 40s to save a life is not, Brawley wrote.

That stance "is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them," he said. The cancer society feels the benefits outweigh the harms for women in both groups.

International guidelines also call for screening to start at age 50; the World Health Organization recommends the test every two years, Britain says every three years.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women. More than 192,000 new cases and 40,000 deaths from the disease are expected in the U.S. this year.

Mammograms can find cancer early, and two-thirds of women over 40 report having had the test in the previous two years. But how much they cut the risk of dying of the disease, and at what cost in terms of unneeded biopsies, expense and worry, have been debated.

In most women, tumors are slow-growing, and that likelihood increases with age. So there is little risk by extending the time between mammograms, some researchers say. Even for the minority of women with aggressive, fast-growing tumors, annual screening will make little difference in survival odds.

The new guidelines balance these risks and benefits, scientists say.

The probability of dying of breast cancer after age 40 is 3 percent, they calculate. Getting a mammogram every other year from ages 50 to 69 lowers that risk by about 16 percent.

"It's an average of five lives saved per thousand women screened," said Georgetown University researcher Dr. Jeanne Mandelblatt.

Starting at age 40 would prevent one additional death but also lead to 470 false alarms for every 1,000 women screened. Continuing mammograms through age 79 prevents three additional deaths but raises the number of women treated for breast cancers that would not threaten their lives.

"You save more lives because breast cancer is more common, but you diagnose tumors in women who were destined to die of something else. The overdiagnosis increases in older women," Mandelblatt said.

She led six teams around the world who used federal data on cancer and mammography to develop mathematical models of what would happen if women were screened at different ages and time intervals. Their conclusions helped shape the new guidelines.

Several medical groups say they are sticking to their guidelines that call for routine screening starting at 40.

"Screening isn't perfect. But it's the best thing we have. And it works," said Dr. Carol Lee, a spokeswoman for the American College of Radiology. She suggested that cutting health care costs may have played a role in the decision, but Petitti said the task force does not consider cost or insurance in its review.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has qualms. The organization's Dr. Hal Lawrence said there is still significant benefit to women in their 40s, adding: "We think that women deserve that benefit."

But Dr. Amy Abernethy of the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center agreed with the task force's changes.

"Overall, I think it really took courage for them to do this," she said. "It does ask us as doctors to change what we do and how we communicate with patients. That's no small undertaking."

Abernethy, who is 41, said she got her first mammogram the day after her 40th birthday, even though she wasn't convinced it was needed. Now she doesn't plan to have another mammogram until she is 50.

Barbara Brenner, executive director of the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Action, said the group was "thrilled" with the revisions. The advocacy group doesn't support screening before menopause, and will be changing its suggested interval from yearly to every two years, she said.

Mammograms, like all medical interventions, have risks and benefits, she said.

"Women are entitled to know what they are and to make their best decisions," she said. "These guidelines will help that conversation."

___

Medical Writer Marilynn Marchione reported from Milwaukee.

___

On the Net:

Government advice: www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/11/16/national/a140032S72.DTL

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Fall concert - Stanford Symphonic Chorus



I joined Stanford Symphonic Chorus in October with my girlfriend Maki. It's open to all students, faculty, staff and any other residents of the community interested in singing music. I've never had formal music training, except playing piano and electric organ, but I always wanted to have more music education. It's so enjoyable!

We are practicing Reicha Missa pro defunctis and JS Bach, selected choruses from Die heilige Weynacht. It's all in German and I get lost easily if I don't pay attention 100%.

The concert will be on Friday, Nov 20, 8 PM and Sunday, Nov 22, 1:30 PM at Memorial Church on the Stanford Campus in collaboration with the Peninsula Symphony Orchestra, Mitchell Sardou Klein, music director and conductor.

Let me know if you are interested in coming!

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Walt Disney Family Museum






I went to Walt Disney Family Museum in Presidio that opened in October this year. It focuses on different chapters in the life of Walt Disney himself, from his early years in Kansas City to his arrival in Hollywood in the 1920s to his technological innovations, like synchronizing sound to a cartoon.

Many parts of the exhibition will be narrated by the voice of Walt, caught on tape by his daughter Diane in the 1950s. Diane -- by then the young wife of Ron Miller, who was a tight end for the Los Angeles Rams -- recorded 19 hours of tape for a biography of her father. It is pretty amazing to follow his life explained by his actual voice.


http://disney.go.com/disneyatoz/familymuseum/index.html

Only one area inside the building is allowed for photography. You can see the beautiful Golden Gate bridge. (I took a picture in bathroom, too :)