Breast cancer spreads most often during sleep, unexpected findings from researchers indicates

Research findings have unearthed "potential implications for the timing of biopsy and treatment of metastasis-prone cancers."

That's one conclusion from the authors of a study published some time ago in the journal Nature that decided "the metastatic spread of breast cancer occurs predominantly during sleep."

The findings, according to a story by Megan Brooks online in Medscape Medical News, were "unexpected."

Nicola Aceto, PhD

Brooks quotes Nicola Aceto, PhD and professor of molecular oncology at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology  (ETH) Zurich, Switzerland, as saying, "This has not been shown before [and] we were surprised, indeed."

Harrison Ball, a PhD candidate, and Sunitha Nagrath, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, also are quoted, to the effect that "this finding is astounding."

In addition, Brooks' piece quotes Dr. Marlene Myers, clinical professor of medicine at NYU Langone's Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York City, regarding clinical implications: "The most obvious is that the time of day [that] treatment is administered may influence efficacy."

She adds, however, that the benefits of treatment someone at night would need to be weighed against the downsides of interrupting a person's normal sleep-wake cycle. 

More information on research can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive a partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Docs still unsure how to quash metastases

Women most likely to die of breast cancer have been getting the least attention, says Time mag excerpt 

Women with breast cancer that has metastasized are rarely the focus of breast-cancer research.

At least that's the position taken by health-care journalist Kate Pickert in a recent Time magazine excerpt from her book, "Radical: The Science, Culture, and History of Breast Cancer in America."

In the piece, Pickert notes that three-quarters of the 160,000 U.S. females who live with with metastases were originally diagnosed with early stages of the disease. 

And she quotes Lianne Kraemer, whose breast cancer has spread and formed tumors inside her brain, resulting in her being labeled a terminal patient, as bemoaning that "I believed the narrative that is pushed on women, that if you check your breasts and if you catch it early, you're fine."

But, she says, "you can do everything right and still end up metastatic."

Pickert, who herself was diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer in 2014 at age 35, claims that many "women who die of breast cancer succumb to the disease for no other reason that that it manages to outwit the protocols" — even for those who have access to high-quality treatment and don't ignore signs of the disease until it's incurable. 

Dr. Cyrus Ghajar

The Time excerpt also quotes Dr. Cyrus Ghajar, a cancer biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, who pointed out that the Cancer Moonshot, a National Cancer Institute initiative launched by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, "does not explicitly provide funding to address the challenges of metastatic cancer."

Ergo, he asks, "How can you have a moon shot trying to cure cancer and not mention people dying of cancer?"

Ghajar, whom the article cites as "one of the relatively small number of scientists studying metastatic breast cancer full time," is also quoted as indicating that "25 percent to 40 percent of early-stage breast-cancer patients already have cancer cells in their bone marrow, and these patients are, on average, three times more likely than those who don't to develop other metastases later."

While asserting that women most likely to die of breast cancer have gotten the least attention, Pickert admits that pharmaceutical companies and researchers do "often test new drugs on metastatic patients before anyone else" — albeit because they are "women who are dying anyway, and they are the ones most willing to be part of experiments."

About 40,000 American women die of the disease each year, the article reports, adding that physicians still don't know "why some breast cancers eventually form deadly metastases or how to quash the disease once it has spread."

As a result, the excerpt continues, patients with metastatic disease "are typically treated with one drug after another, their doctors switching the medications whenever the disease stops responding to treatment. Eventually, nearly all patients with breast-cancer metastases run out of options and die."

Those interested in additional details about metastases can find them in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at caregivers.

'Gaping hole' is found in U.S. health system

N.Y. Times article exposes major economic hardships that some cancer caregivers are facing

America's health system is badly flawed because it's making caregivers of patients with cancer and other diseases work much too hard to negotiate it — especially economically.

Aaron E. Carroll

That's the basic conclusion of a recent The New York Times article by Aaron E. Carroll, a professor at Indiana University School of Medicine.

In the piece, Carroll says his friend, international fraternity CEO Jim Fleischer's story about a rare cancer taught him about the problem in our health system.

Despite his friend having "great insurance" and "enough money" and getting "excellent care," he discovered the "impossibility and hardship faced by…friends and family members who are caregivers."

The situation, Carroll writes, is "hugely disrupting and expensive. There's no system for it. It's a gaping hole." 

The writer cites as an example that following his surgery and chemotherapy, his friend's wife, mother-in-law, friends and co-workers needed to take lots of time off to care for him and take him to appointments.

Carroll also suggests that "if it was this hard for [Jim], it's probably unbearable for many others with fewer resources. People can be financially ruined by illness — and health insurance won't fix that."

Last year, the Times piece notes, "it's estimated that more than 1.7 million people faced a cancer diagnosis. The year before, America spent more than $147 billion caring for people with cancer. But that doesn't include the costs outside of health care."

This year, the article continues, "the National Cancer Institute will spend more than $5.7 billion on cancer research. Almost none of that will investigate how to support the families of those who have the disease."

Researchers in the past have estimated the "economic burden for caregivers for patients with lung and colorectal cancer," Carroll says. "They reported that the average cost to a caregiver in the initial phase of treatment was more than $7,000," with an additional $20,000 spent after treatment on so-called continuing care.

Another study cited caregiving costs for breast cancer at $38,000, lung cancer at $72,000, for ovarian cancer $66,000, for lymphoma $59,000.

Carroll concludes that it's crucial to recognize "that the efforts of caregivers are probably just as important to health as the drugs and procedures the medical system provides."

More details about the issues that helpmates have can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Oncologists told about chances of recurrence

Pregnancy after breast cancer is now believed safe, lead author of European study says

Breast cancer survivors who want to have children may be sighing with relief.

According to a recent story by Marilynn Marchione of the Associated Press, a study of 1,207 women in Europe shows those who became pregnant after their diagnoses "were no more likely to have their cancer come back than those who did not have a baby."

This was true, the story added, "even if their cancers were the type fueled by hormones, which surge during pregnancy and theoretically might spur a recurrence."

Results of the study were discussed at an American Society of Clinical Oncology conference in Chicago.

Dr. Matteo Lambertini

The study's lead author, Dr. Matteo Lambertini of the Jules Bordet Institute in Brussels, Belgium, was quoted as saying the test results show that "pregnancy after breast cancer can be considered safe."

Dr. Richard Schilsky, chief medical officer for ASCO, agreed.

Marchione quoted him as saying the results indicate, "fairly convincingly," that women needn't worry. 

More and more women are being diagnosed with breast cancer in their childbearing years, perhaps an outgrowth of "the average age of moms…rising in the United States," the AP story says.

In fact, it notes, "about 11 percent of new breast cancer cases in the U.S. are in women under 45."

The story also reported that a big study now underway "in the U.S. and other countries is taking this research one step further, testing whether it's safe for breast cancer survivors who want to get pregnant to temporarily suspend taking the hormone-blocking drugs like tamoxifen usually recommended for five years after initial treatment."

More details about studies relating to the disease can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Fed task force changes its mind — for a change

Whether to get PSA prostate cancer screenings can still be guesswork, N.Y. Times warns

Should men between the ages of 55 and 70 get prostate cancer screening?

Depends on whom you're listening to, and when, I guess — especially if it's the federal government making the suggestions.

Aaron E. Carroll

According to a story by Aaron E. Carroll  in The New York Times today, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force "changed its recommendation…from a D (that is, don't do it) to a C (discuss it with your doctor)."

Five years ago, the piece indicated, "the task force gave prostate cancer screening a D recommendation because there are real harms from over-diagnosis of the disease."

The story went on to say that "over-diagnosis leads to unnecessary treatments, and a newly discovered cancer could lead to no symptoms or harm over the patient's lifetime."

It also said that — while "there appeared to be little evidence that screening with with prostrate-specific antigen blood test (PSA) reduced prostate cancer mortality" — "about 75 percent of all the men treated will have impotence, incontinence or both."

A 2014 study that was the largest randomized controlled trial to that date showed, however, "that offering men screening reduced their relative risk of dying of prostate cancer over 13 years by 21 percent."

Those figures are applicable for men between the ages of 55 and 70; after that age, the harms seem to definitely outweigh the benefits.

Carroll is a professor at Indiana University School of Medicine who blogs on health research and policy.

To learn more about research regarding prostate cancer and other diseases, check out "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

5 cups of java might halve malignancy risks

Drinking coffee may help prevent some liver cancers, new British study suggests

A new British analysis shows that people who drink more coffee, even decaffeinated, are less apt to develop liver cancer.

The analysis took into consideration 26 studies, according to a story in a recent Guardian.

For those who drank two cups a day, the risk of hepatocellular cancer (HCC), the most common form of primary liver cancer, dropped by 35 percent compared to those who drank no coffee, the article reported.

"Those who drank one cup a day had a 20 percent lower risk," it added, noting, too, that for those who drank five cups, "the risk was halved." 

The research — published in the journal BMJ Open — was done by experts at the universities of Southampton and Edinburgh. It "examined data involving more than 2.25 million participants." 

Results also showed that "the protective effect for decaf was 'smaller and less certain than for caffeinated coffee.'"

The analysis' lead author, Dr. Oliver Kennedy of the U. of Southampton, was quoted as saying that coffee "is widely believed to possess a range of health benefits [but] we're not suggesting that everyone should start drinking five cups of coffee a day...There needs to be more investigation into the potential harms of high coffee-caffeine intake, and there is evidence it should be avoided in certain groups such as pregnant women."

According to another article — in the Southern Daily Echo, also a British publication — "liver cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer death globally because of its poor prognosis and high frequency…it is estimated that, by 2030, the number of new cases annually will have risen by about 50 percent to more than 1.2 million."

Cancer risks clearly come from a variety of sources, and reductions can come from multiple actions. Details can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Data from 1.2 million females reviewed

Daily glass of wine or booze can dramatically raise women's risk of breast cancer, review shows

Having just one glass of wine or another alcoholic drink a day is likely to boost a woman's risk of breast cancer.

That's what a new massive review indicates, according to a story by Laurie McGinley in today's editions of The Washington Post.

The increased risk is considered significant.

Statistically, McGinley's piece says, the difference is "5 percent for pre-menopausal women and 9 percent for post-menopausal women."

Reducing risk is also possible, the story also reports, by vigorous exercise such as running and bicycling.

That information translates, according to the study, into "pre-menopausal women who were the most active [having] a 17 percent lower risk of developing malignancies compared to the least active women, while post-menopausal women had a 10 percent decreased risk."

Why the added or diminished risks?

McGinley writes that "alcohol increases estrogen, which is linked to increased breast-cancer risk, while physical activity reduces it."

The review — done by the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) and the World Cancer Research Fund — "evaluated research in 119 studies encompassing data on 12 million women from around the world."

AICR estimated that 1 in 3 cases of breast cancer could be prevented if women didn't drink alcohol, were physically active and maintained a healthy weight.

Anne McTiernan

The Post article cites Anne McTiernan, a cancer-prevention researcher at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and one of the report's lead authors, to the effect that the review "suggests there is no level of alcohol use that is completely safe in terms of breast cancer. If a woman is drinking, it would be better if she kept it to a lower amount."

The review showed, too, that women who are overweight or obese run a higher risk of post-menopausal disease in general. Losing just 10 percent of their weight apparently can reduce blood estrogen and inflammation.

But even a healthy lifestyle is no guarantee.

The Post paraphrased the researcher as saying it's more like wearing a safety belt — with many women doing everything they can to reduce their risks but still get diagnosed with breast cancer.

"That's unfortunate, but that's what happens," the newspaper quoted McTiernan as saying.

Many more risks of breast cancer are outlined in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Breast cancer patients 45% more impaired

Largest study to date of the condition validates women's 'chemo-brain' discomfort 

Women who've had read cancer know about the dread and discomfort of 'chemo-brain' first-hand.

But now, the largest study of it conducted so far proves that the condition — which includes impairments in memory, paying attention and processing information — can be a major problem for up to six months after chemotherapy.

Michelle C. Janelsins, Ph.D.

According to investigators at the University of Rochester's Wilmot Cancer Institute, led by Michelle C. Janelsins, Ph.D., 581 breast cancer patients treated at sites across the United States were compared to 384 healthy patients.

The women with breast cancer exhibited 45 percent more impairment, ScienceDaily reported this week.

Is chemotherapy the only cause of the condition?

No. 

The story indicates some impact may have stemmed from heightened anxiety and depressive symptoms from the onset (diagnosis and pre-chemo), being of a younger age and being a member of the black race.

Regardless, the LiveBetterWithCancer website has suggested a much longer influence for chemotherapy. 

Last fall it published a piece saying a study of mice had indicated that the animals' cognitive impairment could equate to 10 years in humans and "have a long lasting impact on the quality of life of cancer survivors."

The site noted that 'chemo brain' might translate into confusion, difficulty multi-tasking, finishing sentences, finding the right words or learning new skills. 

Personal details of my wife's chemo-brain can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Clinical trial on lymphoma is suspended

Cancer researcher's work put into question by his failure to file timely report on deaths

It's no secret that new research can frequently contradict old — even when the latter has only been public for a few days or weeks.

But now comes a new wrinkle: Researchers may be invalidating their work by failing to file appropriate reports.

Or, at best, bringing their tests into question.

Case in point: An early-stage clinical trial sponsored by the National Cancer Institute on an experimental drug, ibrutinib, that involved lymphoma of the central nervous system, a blood cancer that to date had no effective treatment and was often deadly.

According to a story this week by Laurie McGinley in The Washington Post, the lead researcher failed to tell authorities in a timely manner that "two patients had died of fungal infections that might have been caused by the experimental treatment."

That failure, which led to the researcher being suspended "until he undergoes additional training," meant the trial was suspended — despite what McGinley's story called its "impressive results" in which eight of the 18 patients enrolled in the study "continue to be in complete remission, including six whose disease had not responded to previous treatment — a situation that usually causes death within a matter of months."

Dr. Francis Collins

The reporting lapses were reported by Dr. Francis Collins, National Institutes of Health director; Dr. Doug Lowe, NCI director; and other officials.

The study, which was begun in 2013, centered on ibrutinib being used in conjunction "with a cocktail of chemotherapy medications. In addition, steroids were used to reduce swelling in the patients' brains."

The principal investigator, Kieron Dunleavy, had reported concerns — after the second fatality — and "ordered CT scans in other patients in the trial to try to catch fungal infections early, before they became deadly," but he allegedly delayed filing "an official 'unanticipated problem' report" for months.

That kind of report is supposed to be filed within 24 hours of suspecting a problem caused by the treatment.

When the Federal Drug Administration — which regulates trails — learned of the problem, it "conducted a review that concluded there also were several other adverse events that weren't promptly reported," McGinley's story indicated.

Collins said "that it appeared that the combination of ibrutinib and steroids 'seemed to place patients, many of whom have compromised immune systems, at an enhanced risk of infection,'" the article said.

Information on research, and how it often flip-flops, can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Study questions value of post-Stage O procedures

Women with D.C.I.S. must weigh breast cancer surgeries against doing nothing at all

Karen Jaggar

Women who get a lumpectomy or a mastectomy after developing ductal carcinoma in situ, or D.C.I.S., an early form of breast cancer, don't necessarily increase their chances of living.

That's the conclusion of a new, extensive study of 100,000 women followed for 20 years, according to a story in The New York Times by the newspaper's cancer expert, Gina Kolata.

Patients with this condition, also called Stage O, apparently had a 3.3 percent of dying within 20 years of the treatment, regardless of the procedure they underwent — similar to an average woman's chance of dying of breast cancer.

JAMA Oncology cited the researchers' findings yesterday, Aug. 20, basing them on what the Times labeled "the most extensive collection of data ever analyzed on this condition."

D.C.I.S. involves abnormal cells confined to the breast's milk ducts. Upwards of 60,000 women a year are diagnosed with it.

It is generally agreed in the cancer care community that unnecessary and disfiguring treatments following D.C.I.S. diagnosis have often been excessive, but only a minority of physicians believe the best way to treat the condition is to do nothing.

Kolata's story quoted one leading doctor as believing D.C.I.S. "should be treated as a precursor to potentially deadly invasive cancers, analogous to colon polyps that can turn into colon cancer." 

Karen Jaggar, executive director of an educational organization based in San Francisco, Breast Cancer Action, was quoted in the piece as saying women tend not to appreciate the harms of over-treatment and often over-estimate their risk of dying of cancer, "making them react with terror."

As always, though, this study may quickly be contradicted by new studies already underway. "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," the VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, wrote mainly for male caregivers, details how researchers and physicians can flip-flop "on a dime" about almost any medical decision.

Blog praises Woody Weingarten's caregiving book

Veteran author, blogger thinks 'Rollercoaster' helps male caregivers cope with cancer

The main subject of a new Goodreads blog is that  "Rollercoaster" can assist male caregivers in dealing with breast cancer.

Veteran blogger-journalist-novelist-publicist Debbie Cohen writes about what "sometimes slips through the cracks" after diagnosis — a "male partner's concurrent need for assurance in his new role as…primary caregiver."

Debbie Cohen

She says that being "expected to be a pillar of strength…can be a frightening experience for many men. To help that fear, veteran journalist Woody Weingarten has written an important book titled "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer."

It's "exactly the type of book that Weingarten could have used himself," she notes. "He lost his first wife to breast cancer."

Although the book's focus is on breast cancer, her blog continues, "any caregivers, particularly those who are there for patients with AIDs, Alzheimers or, indeed, any life-threatening or altering disease, would benefit from it."

"Rollercoaster" is a memoir-chronicle, a love story, and an up-to-the-minute guide to research, meds, and where to get help.

Debbie's blog is appropriately titled "Why We Need More Books and Advocacy On Behalf of Male Caregivers."

Her first book, "Keeper of the Scale," which deals with body image and the power of female friendships in forming a "diet buddy" threesome.  It is available in both paperback and in ebook format.

'Rollercoaster' full of resources, asserts blogger

Zealous writer: 'Rollercoaster' can make cancer diagnosis 'a little bit easier on us all' 

M.J. Joachim

M.J. Joachim is a "very passionate" author and writer from Mesa, Arizona.

A fellow blogger, Philip Verhese Ariel, explains that her passion, in part, has been aimed at "making the world a better place…by raising awareness."

One small step toward that goal, I'm absolutely thrilled to report, occurred when she gave my new VitalityPress book, "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a glowing review.

Below, starting with the next paragraph, are excerpts from M.J.'s piece, which was published on Feb. 3, 2015. The full review, of course, is available on her website.

Breast cancer is one of those scary, taboo subjects nobody wants to talk about, despite the fact that millions of people are and have been affected by it. 

It’s personal. Cancer always seems to be so darned personal. 

For decades we’ve danced around the big C word. 

Until now! 

How I wish this book had been around when my father and uncles died of cancer so many years ago! How I wish this book had been around over the years when I had two benign breast biopsies - one at 28, another in my mid 30’s.

Weingarten is the caregiver of his wife Nancy and her breast cancer; years later, he is also the patient with cancer. 

Seems many of us get to deal with the big C more than once in our lives, and in various ways too. 

For all the research, money raised, government programs, medicines and treatments tried, things which Weingarten fully addresses in this book, we still don’t seem to find the answers we need. 

This book doesn’t offer any false hope. Weingarten describes in scrupulous detail the evolution of cancer meds and treatments since the 70’s. It’s an important section in the book, and if I ever do get cancer, you can bet I’ll never opt to take tamoxifen, partly because of what I learned in this book.

All the big C talk aside, Rollercoaster is a love story about a man and a woman dealing with her diagnosis, treatment and side effects (those little things no one really wants to talk about like loss of sex drive, anger and anxiety, relationship challenges, an entire myriad of fears ranging from how to deal with hair loss to night sweats and coping with nightmares, even eating to deal with stress). 

Twenty years later Woody & Nancy are still happily married survivors of the big C that changed and redefined their lives forever. 

“Marin-Man-to-Man is a drop-in, dues-free support group open to any male whose partner has or has had, breast cancer (or another life-threatening disease).” Much of this book makes reference to this excellent resource and support group for male caregivers living in the San Francisco Bay Area, a group Woody himself attends. 

Closing chapters are full of valuable resources and books for both caregivers and cancer sufferers alike. 

If you haven’t personally been touched by cancer yet, you’re lucky. I strongly recommend this book to everyone, because this book has the ability to make the dreaded big C diagnosis a little bit easier on us all.

Thanks so much for taking time to share your story, Woody. I trust and hope many people will be extremely fortunate to read Rollercoaster and benefit from you and your wife’s experience with breast cancer.

'Rollercoaster' author provides own Fantasyland

Writer flaunts wish on Texan's blog: 35 million to buy and read 'Rollercoaster,' dispel worries

Welcome to Fantasyland, Woody Weingarten version, circa 2015.

During an interview just published online, I implied that if most of the 35 million caregivers in the United States bought my new VitalityPress book, "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," I'd stop worrying "about getting out my message that there can be light and life at the end of the proverbial tunnel."

Maryann thinks photo shows my message.

Probably true.

But my late mother's DNA legacy, a throbbing worry gland, might not let me off the hook so easily.

The interview, which went online last Wednesday, Jan. 28, was carried out by Texas blogger, columnist, novelist and  playwright Maryann Miller. It marked my initial dip into somebody else's pool.

It was fun to do.

Here is the lion's share of the interview (for the whole enchilada, check out Maryann's blog, "It's Not All Gravy").  

Hi, Woody here. I’m thrilled to be interviewed/interrogated by Maryann, but I must admit I’m a little nervous. Although I’m a chronological geezer, I’m actually a virgin — at appearing on someone else’s blog, that is.

LOL, Woody, that’s the best introduction I’ve had from one of my guests. And now that you are no longer a virgin at this, I do hope you will find other blogs on which to do a guest post.

Q. Please tell our readers how you came to write your latest book.

I wrote “Rollercoaster” because I believed my experiences, research and expertise could help those going through a life-threatening disease or its aftermath. I think male caregivers, often the forgotten part of the breast cancer equation, are particularly in need of help. But women also can learn what their partners may be feeling. According to The New York Times, there currently are 35 million caregivers in the United States. If most of them bought “Rollercoaster,” I’d be able to stop worrying about getting out my message that there can be light and life at the end of the proverbial tunnel.

Q. You have been through the ordeal of having a spouse with breast cancer twice. Did the fact that your first wife had it, make it harder when Nancy was diagnosed?

In a word, yes. It was incredibly sad, and frightening, when the mother of my children ultimately died from the disease. But the fear has faded over time, and Nancy, I’m happy to report, is alive and thriving 20 years later.

Q. There was a lot in the book about chemo-brain, and I know from my sister’s experience that the memory loss is a problem. Did Nancy find that her memory improved after being past chemo for some time?

Nancy’s memory did get better, but there still are blanks and blotches that apparently will never improve. And of course I’m convinced that, like many otherwise loving wives, she’ll never completely forget anything I ever did wrong. (Don’t take that sentence seriously. Now and then she even lets go of my sins.)

Q. What is the hardest thing about writing?

Writing. That’s meant to be a half-joke, and it’s mostly untrue. The hardest part is rewriting and rewriting and rewriting to “get it right.”

Amen to that!!

Q. What is the most unusual or interesting research you have done for your books?

The most interesting by far was discovering that almost any medical findings, no matter how definitive a report seemed, are likely to be contradicted by other research in the following weeks, months or years. The pendulum keeps swinging back and forth, confusing practitioners, patients and caregivers.

That was equally interesting to me as a reader, too, Woody, as was the chapter on medications.

Q. What is your fondest childhood memory?

Believe it or not, it’s a cumulative memory consisting of a series of accidents. I was hit by a moving car while playing ball in the street. I fell off a school wall into a tree limb that pierced my chest. I cut my knee when I recklessly stepped through the windshield of a tractor-trailer that was sitting, shattered, on the ground. The reason it’s my “fondest” memory is simple — I survived.

And we are so glad you did, Woody.

Q. If you could go through a wormhole, would you go into the future, the past, or stay right here? Why?

I’d stay right here. I’m mature enough to have learned more than a thing or two about “giving back” and enjoying life without being too old to make those things happen.

Great thought with which to end the interview, Woody. As you say in your book, looking mortality in the face does give you a new perspective on life. Thanks so much for being my guest today.

BOOK BLURB: 

"Rollercoaster" a comprehensive memoir-chronicle and guide to up-to-the-minute scientific research, meds and where to get help. It shows how Nancy Fox and her husband Woody Weingarten coped with breast cancer, its treatments and its aftermath — and how you can as well. Almost 250,000 new breast cancer cases are diagnosed annually. Male caregivers (husbands, boyfriends, fathers, sons and brothers) typically become a forgotten part of the equation. Yet they, too, need support. “Rollercoaster” can help provide it. Weingarten, a prize-winning journalist for 50 years, has led a male partner’s support group for two decades. Though he became an expert reluctantly, he now unflinchingly shares what he’s learned.

You can connect with Woody at his weblog on Facebook and Twitter

and LinkedIn

COMMENTS:
LD Masterson: Very nice meeting Woody. I wish this book had been available when my dad was taking care of my mom.

Maryann Miller: 
Thanks for stopping by, LD. I, too, wish the book had been available when my sister went through her surgery and treatment.