Kate Middleton cancer in remission

[Anonymous]

Good luck. My friend had a similar story...the cancer came back 2 years later and she died. Mid 40s, three children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good luck. My friend had a similar story...the cancer came back 2 years later and she died. Mid 40s, three children.

Sorry to hear about your loss.
Let’s hope for a good outcome for Kate Middleton and her family.

[Anonymous]

Personally I think the "discreet" announcements did more to fan a larger volume of speculation and gossip than if she had an announced what kind of cancer. Even if bad prognosis like pancreatic, would have had less vicious speculations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally I think the "discreet" announcements did more to fan a larger volume of speculation and gossip than if she had an announced what kind of cancer. Even if bad prognosis like pancreatic, would have had less vicious speculations.

The vicious speculators are the only ones who look bad here. And they would be vicious no matter what which is why nobody caters to them and their whims when it comes to how information is shared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It matters the type because outcomes are different. If a patient doesn't reveal the cancer type, nothing else they say about their cancer is important or worth my attention.

Cancer is more than probability of death. You may very well discover that, since there's about a 1 in 2 chance you'll get it. Hopefully, when you're writhing in pain from surgery or chemo, no one says, "but what type? It matters for outcomes. Tell me or nothing you say is worth my attention."

I'm not PP, and don't agree with the last part of their comment, but the type/stage are relevant IMO. I come from a large family that has a ton of cancer problems - and its hard to see some of our relatives with stage 1 cancer of a type with a very high survival rate compare themselves to other relatives with stage 4 low survival type cancer. It sucks all around, but stage 1 cancer of some types is hardly the death sentence that stage 4 is for many. My father was diagnosed with stage 1 at 60 and lived until he was 85, my brother was diagnosed with stage 4 at 55 and lived just 4 years. So yeah, the stage and type matters in terms of how serious it is for most.

The American Cancer Society tracks survival rates for 22 types of cancer. The most recent reports show the five-year survival rate for 11 of those types of cancer ranges between 100% for prostate cancer to 90.9% for colon cancer. Here’s information on survival rates for other localized cancers:

Thyroid cancer, 99.9%.
Melanoma of skin, 99.6%.
Breast cancer, 99.3%.
Testicular cancer, 99.2%.
Uterine cancer, 94.9%.
Kidney cancer, 92.9%.
Ovarian cancer, 92.4%.
Hodgkin lymphoma, 92.2 %.
Cervical cancer, 91.2%.

What cancers have the lowest survival rates?
Esophageal cancer, 48.8%.
Pancreatic cancer, 44.3%.
Liver cancer and intrahepatic bile cancer, 37.3%.
Brain cancer, 36%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It matters the type because outcomes are different. If a patient doesn't reveal the cancer type, nothing else they say about their cancer is important or worth my attention.

Cancer is more than probability of death. You may very well discover that, since there's about a 1 in 2 chance you'll get it. Hopefully, when you're writhing in pain from surgery or chemo, no one says, "but what type? It matters for outcomes. Tell me or nothing you say is worth my attention."

I'm not PP, and don't agree with the last part of their comment, but the type/stage are relevant IMO. I come from a large family that has a ton of cancer problems - and its hard to see some of our relatives with stage 1 cancer of a type with a very high survival rate compare themselves to other relatives with stage 4 low survival type cancer. It sucks all around, but stage 1 cancer of some types is hardly the death sentence that stage 4 is for many. My father was diagnosed with stage 1 at 60 and lived until he was 85, my brother was diagnosed with stage 4 at 55 and lived just 4 years. So yeah, the stage and type matters in terms of how serious it is for most.

The American Cancer Society tracks survival rates for 22 types of cancer. The most recent reports show the five-year survival rate for 11 of those types of cancer ranges between 100% for prostate cancer to 90.9% for colon cancer. Here’s information on survival rates for other localized cancers:

Thyroid cancer, 99.9%.
Melanoma of skin, 99.6%.
Breast cancer, 99.3%.
Testicular cancer, 99.2%.
Uterine cancer, 94.9%.
Kidney cancer, 92.9%.
Ovarian cancer, 92.4%.
Hodgkin lymphoma, 92.2 %.
Cervical cancer, 91.2%.

What cancers have the lowest survival rates?
Esophageal cancer, 48.8%.
Pancreatic cancer, 44.3%.
Liver cancer and intrahepatic bile cancer, 37.3%.
Brain cancer, 36%.

What is the point of this? A good friend had breast cancer 10 years ago. Thought she was in remission but it came back as another type of cancer and she died in her early 40s. My mother had breast cancer also about 10 years ago and now has a new cancer. Nobody needs to know what type of cancer someone has so they can ghoulishly make predictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally I think the "discreet" announcements did more to fan a larger volume of speculation and gossip than if she had an announced what kind of cancer. Even if bad prognosis like pancreatic, would have had less vicious speculations.

I disagree. I think it stems less from a celebrity keeping her cancer diagnosis relatively discreet - which happens a lot - and more about dislike of her personally / dislike of the monarchy.

There are a lot of obits that mention a "cancer battle" and don't name the cancer. I cannot imagine friends or acquaintances "viciously speculating" or having anger with a person for keeping their type of cancer / cancer treatment under wraps. WTF, weirdos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It matters the type because outcomes are different. If a patient doesn't reveal the cancer type, nothing else they say about their cancer is important or worth my attention.

Cancer is more than probability of death. You may very well discover that, since there's about a 1 in 2 chance you'll get it. Hopefully, when you're writhing in pain from surgery or chemo, no one says, "but what type? It matters for outcomes. Tell me or nothing you say is worth my attention."

I'm not PP, and don't agree with the last part of their comment, but the type/stage are relevant IMO. I come from a large family that has a ton of cancer problems - and its hard to see some of our relatives with stage 1 cancer of a type with a very high survival rate compare themselves to other relatives with stage 4 low survival type cancer. It sucks all around, but stage 1 cancer of some types is hardly the death sentence that stage 4 is for many. My father was diagnosed with stage 1 at 60 and lived until he was 85, my brother was diagnosed with stage 4 at 55 and lived just 4 years. So yeah, the stage and type matters in terms of how serious it is for most.

The American Cancer Society tracks survival rates for 22 types of cancer. The most recent reports show the five-year survival rate for 11 of those types of cancer ranges between 100% for prostate cancer to 90.9% for colon cancer. Here’s information on survival rates for other localized cancers:

Thyroid cancer, 99.9%.
Melanoma of skin, 99.6%.
Breast cancer, 99.3%.
Testicular cancer, 99.2%.
Uterine cancer, 94.9%.
Kidney cancer, 92.9%.
Ovarian cancer, 92.4%.
Hodgkin lymphoma, 92.2 %.
Cervical cancer, 91.2%.

What cancers have the lowest survival rates?
Esophageal cancer, 48.8%.
Pancreatic cancer, 44.3%.
Liver cancer and intrahepatic bile cancer, 37.3%.
Brain cancer, 36%.

What is the point of this? A good friend had breast cancer 10 years ago. Thought she was in remission but it came back as another type of cancer and she died in her early 40s. My mother had breast cancer also about 10 years ago and now has a new cancer. Nobody needs to know what type of cancer someone has so they can ghoulishly make predictions.

Not PP, but I will take a stab at what I think he/she is trying to say here. Basically, no two cancers are the same. A minor, "stage 0" skin cancer that can be removed in a 20 minute outpatient procedure is not the same as a Stage IV pancreatic cancer diagnosis. So, I think PP is trying to say, the amount of sympathy that we should give Kate depends on how grave her diagnosis was. If it was Stage 0 or Stage 1, she's a drama llama and should get back to work. If it's Stage IV esophageal cancer, that's worthy of us wishing her well.

And to that I say - hers was not an "insignificant cancer". If they are doing adjuvant chemotherapy, they are concerned about metastasis - or even worse, it had already metastacized, either locally or distantly. She had to do chemo - that ups it to a "serious cancer" regardless of cancer subtype. You don't need to know the subtype to know that she had a really awful year and received awful news and deserves our sympathy and compassion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally I think the "discreet" announcements did more to fan a larger volume of speculation and gossip than if she had an announced what kind of cancer. Even if bad prognosis like pancreatic, would have had less vicious speculations.

Any details provided would have been analyzed and speculated to pieces. Keep in mind they have young children. They’re smart to keep the details locked down for that reason alone. Once they attach any details at all, their kids would see headlines like “Kate’s diagnosis carries 30% chance of death” or other such “analysis.” This way they have made it so they can control what their kids hear and understand about mom’s prognosis and that is more important than anything else to them, I’m sure.

She also has no obligation to share her medical information, ever, and good for her for putting herself first in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally I think the "discreet" announcements did more to fan a larger volume of speculation and gossip than if she had an announced what kind of cancer. Even if bad prognosis like pancreatic, would have had less vicious speculations.

+100

The way they handle everything is so dumb. Rather than disappear for a month and release some crazy photoshopped picture with your kids that makes you such a laughingstock that you have to say something. Makes more sense to do a lowkey statement like Charles did

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally I think the "discreet" announcements did more to fan a larger volume of speculation and gossip than if she had an announced what kind of cancer. Even if bad prognosis like pancreatic, would have had less vicious speculations.

Any details provided would have been analyzed and speculated to pieces. Keep in mind they have young children. They’re smart to keep the details locked down for that reason alone. Once they attach any details at all, their kids would see headlines like “Kate’s diagnosis carries 30% chance of death” or other such “analysis.” This way they have made it so they can control what their kids hear and understand about mom’s prognosis and that is more important than anything else to them, I’m sure.

She also has no obligation to share her medical information, ever, and good for her for putting herself first in this case.

They should be telling the kids what is going on though. And everything was analyzed to death from the photo to her absence. Of course she’s under no obligation to share but if she was ultimately going to (which she did) then can’t think of a worse way to do it.

[Anonymous]

Have always liked Kate, but this has made me like her less. She's in a position where she could raise awareness and reduce the stigma of cancer (especially if it's colon cancer) an she's chosen not to. I get that it's hard, but it's harder for everyone who doesn't have her resources. I so admire the celebrities who during tough personal times nevertheless use the experience to make a difference.

My guess is that she was treated outside the UK or had access to treatment regular people wouldn't and they don't want to publicize that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have always liked Kate, but this has made me like her less. She's in a position where she could raise awareness and reduce the stigma of cancer (especially if it's colon cancer) an she's chosen not to. I get that it's hard, but it's harder for everyone who doesn't have her resources. I so admire the celebrities who during tough personal times nevertheless use the experience to make a difference.

My guess is that she was treated outside the UK or had access to treatment regular people wouldn't and they don't want to publicize that.

A lot of celebrities have come out with their cancer diagnoses well after treatment. A lot. Off the top of my head - Sheryl Crowe, Robin Roberts, Alyssa Milano. I think even Lance Armstrong didn’t put out that it was testicular cancer until well after he was done with treatment. RBG kept her recurrences under wraps. Pam from The Office just had breast cancer, but I think she didn’t go public until she was through chemo. I think it’s actually a perfectly normal thing to not want to be super public while going through active treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally I think the "discreet" announcements did more to fan a larger volume of speculation and gossip than if she had an announced what kind of cancer. Even if bad prognosis like pancreatic, would have had less vicious speculations.

Any details provided would have been analyzed and speculated to pieces. Keep in mind they have young children. They’re smart to keep the details locked down for that reason alone. Once they attach any details at all, their kids would see headlines like “Kate’s diagnosis carries 30% chance of death” or other such “analysis.” This way they have made it so they can control what their kids hear and understand about mom’s prognosis and that is more important than anything else to them, I’m sure.

She also has no obligation to share her medical information, ever, and good for her for putting herself first in this case.

They should be telling the kids what is going on though. And everything was analyzed to death from the photo to her absence. Of course she’s under no obligation to share but if she was ultimately going to (which she did) then can’t think of a worse way to do it.

I have a recurrence risk of 30% in the next five years. My kids are the same ages as Kates kids. What should I tell them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have always liked Kate, but this has made me like her less. She's in a position where she could raise awareness and reduce the stigma of cancer (especially if it's colon cancer) an she's chosen not to. I get that it's hard, but it's harder for everyone who doesn't have her resources. I so admire the celebrities who during tough personal times nevertheless use the experience to make a difference.

My guess is that she was treated outside the UK or had access to treatment regular people wouldn't and they don't want to publicize that.

Please let us know these celebrities who during tough personal times used the experience to make a difference!