Colorectal Cancer Treatment

Question: Where is the best cancer treatment in Canada? I was diagnosed with colorectal cancer with liver mets in February 2006. I cannot obtain any effective treatment in Newfoundland, and doctors here refuse to refer me for treatment abroad. Where in Canada can I turn for help?

Answer: this is the best I would say Princess Margaret Hospital 610 University Ave. Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 2M9 http://www.uhn.ca/PMH/index.htm also here is a link for the directory for cancer hospitals in Canada http://www.cancerindex.org/clinks5c.htm I have cancer to and they are fantastic I hop this helps

Question: what is the treatment for colorectal cancer?

Answer: probably surgery with a colostomy, then chemo/radiation.

Question: Chineese Herbal Medicenes for colorectal cancer? Is there anybody who used/knows about Chineese Herbals like Zooncan ,Canelim , Tian Xian .I found these names in the internet as an alternative treatment for Colorectal Cancer. Please let me know of any other alternative treatments which has been fruitfull to cancer patients, that you may be knowing..

Answer: Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is practiced in every Chinese hospital parallel with western medicine. A TCM doctor will be the first to tell you that TCM is not an alternative to western medicine, but rather a complimentary treatment. TCM medication for cancer is administered after the principle western medical interventions have been completed. Surgery, chemo, and radiation treatment must be completed before TCM is administered. However, TCM may be administered concurrently with follow-on western medications such as Tamoxifen. TCM cancer medications are typically prescribed to be taken daily over a multi-year period. Their purpose is not to cure cancer, but to support the body's own immune and other systems.

Question: Colorectal cancer? Hey everyone! My mom was diagnosed with colorectal cancer a few weeks ago. She is starting chemotherapy today, and I don't know much about the treatment. Does anyone know about it? I would appreciate any help! Thanks! If you need any more info about it, check my most recent blog entry on my 360.

Answer: GO TO WWW.MAYOCLINIC.COM AND SEARCH THIS TYPE OF CANCER

Question: Does anyone know any alternative treatments for stage four colorectal cancer? A friend of mine has it and is enduring 8 hours of kemo drip a day and has lost all his hair and his tumor is not shrinking any like they had hoped.

Answer: Here is an article that I found through a health directory - it discusses about conventional treatments versus alternative ones - http://www.healthandwellnesscentral.com/Article/Interrupting-The-Process-Of-Cancer---Part-II-of-II/776

Question: Is a 26 year old female is too young to have colorectal cancer and to had a partial coloectomy done? Could it possibly be a genetic for someone to have colon cancer and needs a partial coloectomy and they dont need no treatment at this time such as, radiation or chemotherapy? Will this young person to have normal bowels again? Do doctors really recommend the person to be on a special diet? Does that means they have to wear a bag through their skin?

Answer: You have several individual questions: 1. 26 is generally too young to worry about colorectal cancer, however some rare congenital condition can make it a possibility 2. Treatment would be designed around location and severity of the cancer. If surgery is indicated, a colectomy would involve a colostomy (bag at the skin) which may be temporary and reversible. 3. Normal bowel function would depend on extent of surgery, but is possible after reversal of colectomy.

Question: is there an alternative treatment for familial polyposis? My sister died of colorectal cancer 6 years ago, last month her two sons was diagnose with familial polyposis, one of them the biopsy came out as malignant already. The only treatment for this we were told is to removed the colon and be on a colostomy for the rest of their lives, but they are still so young, 29 and 28 years old, no wife nor kids.

Answer: You really don't want to screw around with alternative treatments when you son's lives could be at risk, familial polyposis can lead to colon cancer. Once colon cancer metastasize it becomes very difficult to treat. I had an opportunity of taking care of a gentleman who went the alternative route and it was not a good ending. I Have taken care of young men who had to have this procedure done and thankfully I have not had to see them again (cancer free). Sorry, I'm not trying to be an a-hole. I work with people who are fighting cancer every day.

Question: I was diagnosed with colorectal cancer in sept of 06-? Since then I've had chemo & radiation treatment at the same time for 5 weeks, I had cancerous tumors removed from rectum, I still have to have chemo treatment, I wear an infusion pump this really sucks. If they removed the cancerous tumors why must I still under go the chemo treatments, my cock tail is 5fu, they also give me eloxim which makes me sensitive to cold. When will I be able not to have any treatments? I feel that the treatment is worse than the disease. If I had to do it over again, I wouldn't I would let nature take its course. I'm on my second power port, first one got infected and had to be removed. I was in so much pain I prayed to die.

Answer: You do not need to continue with treatment if you decide not to do this. The decision is totally up to you. You need to call your doctor and discuss this issue thoroughly. You are only being treated because you agreed to do this. If you feel that the treatment is worse than the disease than you can stop it at anytime. It is your life. I am sorry that you have had such a difficult time. If you decide to go off treatment you should talk to a medical social worker who can help you decide what to do next. At some point you may need to contact hospice to help you with the next step in this difficult journey. Stay strong and call your doctor today. Treatment is your decision and no one elses.

Question: Can i still get pregmant after my fiance goes through treatment? My Fiance is going to start chemo and radiation monday for colorectal cancer. I have read that his fertility will be affected for up to a year after his treament is over but will it peremently effect it?

Answer: It would be best to ask your doctors for specific situations in your case. Some Iraq soldiers kept some semen in a bank so that if they did not return fully able to reproduce, they have a back up plan. They where worried about chemical exposure. You might see if there is time to set something into a bank. Best of luck in his treatments. I hope he is doing better than Dave, and Dave is still living. You might want to see why. http://kangenwaterusa.com/CancerSurvivalStory.html

Question: Why Do Liberals Think Canada Has A Better Health Care System? The U.S. has better cancer treatments says Canadian news reports. Canadian cancer survivor: "There’s no question that going to the United States saved my life" Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada - CCAC http://www.ccac-accc.ca/news.php?id=53 "In Canada the average wait for procedures such as neurosurgery is more than four months; for cancer radiation treatment, over two months. The average wait for treatment after consulting a specialist for coronary bypass clocks in at up to 52 weeks, with four to 12 weeks for angioplasty. That’s the reality in our backlogged public health system, according to a recent survey by The Fraser Institute, a think tank based in Vancouver. In the United States, you can often be on an operating table within a week or two of referral to a surgeon." "Canadian patients who go [ to the U.S. ] report speedier, better service....anybody can find the specialist he or she needs, or gain access to the most advanced technology available." Canadian government: "Four years ago when Suzanne Aucoin was diagnosed with colorectal cancer, she had to travel every week to the United States to buy life-saving cancer drugs " Medical Tourism Boosted by Long Wait Times - Embassy - Newspaper http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/march/28/tourism/ Many Canadians receive government-funded U.S. medical treatments in the U.S.. Canada's medical systems pays for sending many Canadian patients to the U.S. to receive cancer treaments, advanced body scans, etc.. Health insurance in America is affordable. In many states, good private healthcare insurance only costs around $100 a month. The problem is old insurance laws block the insurance from being sold from state to state. That stifles competition. Consumers should be allowed to purchase insurance directly from HMO's with no middlemen involved. President Bush Delivers State of the Union Address, "Allow Health Insurance to be Purchased Across State Lines " http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/healthcare/ Reforming Health Care for the 21st Century "Why can't people buy health insurance over state lines?" http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ao0eomAKXMcJAyprF3hnaMTty6IX?qid=20070813004202AA9jlt0

Answer: Having been in Europe where socialized medicine got it's start, healthcare is not "free." I just recently went through knee surgery and while undergoing a pre-op physical, the nurse at our local hospital told me Canadians were taking "vacations" to come to the U.S. for speedy healthcare. In response to RLP, liberals having a "rational side" is hard to imagine. Even in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they still believe the nanny state should provide all of our needs. Medicare, Social Security, education, welfare are fine examples of the government "helping" us. In the words of our best president ever, Ronald Reagan. he said "The 9 most dangerous words in America are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Question: CEA Tumor Marker Test Range? Hi. Someone I know is going through cancer treatment (colorectal). His CEA score started at 12, went down to 6.5, and is now up to 25. Other than it going in the wrong direction, what do scores really mean? What is the possible range on the CEA tumor marker scale? Does it go up to 100, 1000, forever? Is there any correlation between # and prognosis or is it just that if it goes up, it's not good? Thanks! The tumor has not been removed, he's unable to have additional CT scans due to an allergic reaction to the chemicals used for that process, and he is presently doing chemo only (no radiation therapy yet).

Answer: Firstly, CEA, is a tumor marker test that falls under the catagory of immunoassay testing. Each manufacturer of the instruments to perform this test develop their own method for the testing. Immunoassay instruments often do not correlate from one method to another (what may be 45 on one instrument and method, might be 55 on another instrument/method). It is important that people who are having serial tumor marker testing performed, have it done at the same place for the duration of the monitoring period to insure the most consistant results. There are two ranges that are determined in any Laboratory test. The analytical range (AMR) and the clinically reportable range (CRR). The AMR, is the span of both minimum and maximum range that the instrument performing the test can analyze. The CRR is the maximum value that the laboratory determines to be clinically significant to patient diagnosis, beyond which obtaining a "number" is no longer useful. In the case of CEA, for example, lets say the instrument can measure CEA as low as 0.1 and as high as 100. Once the test exceeds the value of 100, the patient's specimen must then be diluted to obtain the result. The laboratory will continue to dilute the specimen until they reach the maximum value that is clinically useful for diagnosis. This value varies from Laboratory to Laboratory, and test to test, and is determined by the Laboratory's Medical Director. So, in one laboratory, they may be willing to dilute the specimen until they eventually report ">500" and at another laboratory they may continue to dilute the specimen until it is ">5000". At some point, obtaining the "number" becomes irrelavent, because it will not change the physician's course of treatment nor will it further the physician's diagnosis. There can be some correlation between tumor marker values and treatment, but what the immediate course of action, after a single increase would be, is up to the physician monitoring the patient.

Question: 60yr old female: red blood on stool + t paper. hemorrhoid flare-up. proctosedyl treatment no more blood. Worry stool test came back positive for blood twice, but during this time she had inflammed hemorrhoids. After the suppository treatment, she no longer has any pain or straining during bowel movement and all visible signs of red blood on the stool and toilet paper have disappeared. So how likely is this to be something more serious like colorectal cancer? She is now due to repeat the stool test again

Answer: Its Very possible Just as anything is possible. At 60 yrs old I'd be suprised if she hasnt gone to see a doctor yet. You would be suprised how many people there are out there Who dont know straining is bad. Means something is wrong. Try some colon blast before you get ass cancer.

Question: What can I buy my cancer nurse? My colorectal nurse has been so so helpful, and has been so supportive in so many ways. I've now finished all treatment and operations, and was wondering what can I buy her as a thank you gift? Nothing too personal, or inappropriate, but something more than a box of chocolates!

Answer: I am a cancer nurse. Nothing has meant more to me than the thank you cards I have received from patients and families. I save them all. Somedays are really really hard at work, but I can look at those cards and it makes it all worthwhile. I'm sure you want to give a little more than a card. I have gotten gift certificates to restaurants. I really liked that...who doesn't like to eat out every now and then. You are so sweet to want to recognize her. It will mean so much to her.

Question: What is likely treatment for colon polyps (adenomatous) condition? ? I've turned 50 y.o. this year, conscientiously had a physical exam (all OK) and routine referral for colonoscopy screening. I have no symptoms of illness, am pretty healthy; but what I expected to be a routine colonoscopy actually found many polyps and prompted Dr. to make a referral for labs. Dr's report said "The large number and variety of polyps is unusual." and that "genetic testing is indicated." Dr. had me back twice more, each time looked around in my colon and removed many polyps. The three colonoscopy procedures during past four months have found about 50 polyps, mostly pre-cancerous "adenomas" - tubular and tubulovillous per pathology reports; but no dysplasia nor carcinoma at present). Most polyps found have been fairly small, a couple 1.0-1.5 cm. Still some small sessile polyps remain at present. After 3rd colonoscopy Dr. counseled that consideration should be given to genetic testing, "and ultimately colectomy may be needed." Dr. referred me for "FAPKM" genetic testing, they drew my blood and have sent it off to Mayo Clinic. This "FAPKM" testing seems pretty specialized - they are looking for a specific genetic mutation that might inhibit my colon from suppressing polyps. I have no known family history of colon polyps, no family history of colorectal cancer. Everything I've read seems to indicate that a colon with 50 pre-cancerous polyps is serious, whether the cause is genetic or "sporadic," and leaves me with the impression the colectomy option may (eventually?) be more likely needed than not. While I await test results I wonder, can anyone here explain likely range of outcomes for someone with my current condition?

Answer: There are several familial polyposis syndromes: Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), due to APC gene mutation- cancer occurs on average by 4th decade. Attenuated FAP: similar but delayed age onset and fewer polyps Turcots and Gardner's syndromes: FAP plus various extraintestinal manifestations. Peutz-Jegher's, Juvenile polyposis syndromes, and others less common Cancer rates can approach 100% in FAP in some series, frequently by age 45. You may have an attenuated version. Basically, if there are too many polyps to perform surveillance colonoscopy successfully, then colectomy is usually recommended. Blessings

Question: American health care system outperforms the socialized systems in Europe? "A new study by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden shows that the American health care system outperforms the socialized systems in Europe in getting new medicines to cancer patients. The difference saves lives, and the existing Western European systems force people to die at higher rates from the same cancers, although the Telegraph buries that lede. The researchers studied Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, South Africa and the US, as well as 19 European countries, with a total population of 984 million, and looked at access to 67 newer cancer drugs. They found that the proportions of female cancer patients surviving five years beyond diagnosis in France, Spain, Germany, Italy were 71 per cent, 64 per cent, 63 per cent and 63 per cent respectively. In the UK it was 53 per cent. Among men the proportions still alive at five years in the same countries were 53 per cent, 50 per cent, 53 per cent and 48 per cent. Again in the UK it was lower at 43 per cent." The survivability rates beyond five years of diagnosis in the United States are far in excess of all of these socialized countries with socialized medicine. Here's the point, though, and it takes a while in the story for it to show up. Here's the reference in the story about the American system. "Dr. Nils Wilking, a clinical oncologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, said: "Our report highlights that in many countries new drugs are not reaching patients quickly enough and that this is having an adverse impact on patient survival. Where you live can determine whether you receive the best available treatment or not. To some extent this is determined by economic factors, but much of the variation between countries remains unexplained. In the US we have found that the survival of cancer patients is significantly related to the introduction of new oncology drugs.' ... The proportion of colorectal cancer patients with access to the drug Avastin was 10 times higher in the US than it was in Europe, with the UK having a lower uptake than the European average." United States health care saves more lives than socialized medicine, and yet socialized medicine is one of the building blocks of the Democrat Party's agenda, particularly Mrs. Bill Clinton's agenda. Now, it's the same thing with tax revenue that we were just discussing. If current tax rates are producing record amounts of revenue and rapid economic growth, why would you change it? If the US health care system is the best in the world, despite its flaws -- if it's the best in the world and people who come down with deadly diseases survive much longer here because of access to drugs much sooner and much cheaper than people who live in socialized countries have access to it -- why in the world would you change it? Well, there's a simple answer. Socialists want control. They want as much control over us as they can get. It's about power. It's about enlarging the State. It's about making you dependent, and that eliminates your threatening their power. The less wealth you have, the less mobility, freedom, the less of a threat you are to their power. This is liberalism through and through. Now you might ask: "How come so many average Americans are liberals and they're willing to give up this power?" Because they're dupes. I'm talking about the leaders. I'm talking about the people in Washington. I'm talking about the think tank leaders. I'm talking about the special interest groups. Liberals in this country, these doofuses that write the hateful comments on Internet blogs, they're just unhappy people in general. They want everybody else to be miserable with them anyway. They're probably jealous of people who do better than them and they want those people taken down a peg or two. They want everything the same. Everything the same. No inequality. No inequity. They want outcome of results. They're sickos and they're miserable and they're unhappy and they want everybody to join them in that. But you talk about ideology? Liberals believe this and conservatives believe this. It's really very, very simple. Conservatives believe in individual liberty and freedom and ambition so that people can become the best they can be, because it is believed that the greatest society and the greatest culture, the greatest country, is achieved by the greatest number of people pursuing excellence. Liberals don't have that faith in people and they don't want that kind of freedom. They want to be in charge. They want to have the power and they want people dependent because that is what enriches them in every which way you can imagine.

Answer: Well DUH! Of course our pharmaceutical industry is better, we produce new medicines as quickly as possible because the private drug companies want something to sell. But the problem is, our system only gives those drugs to people who can afford it.

Question: American health care system outperforms ? "A new study by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden shows that the American health care system outperforms the socialized systems in Europe in getting new medicines to cancer patients. The difference saves lives, and the existing Western European systems force people to die at higher rates from the same cancers, although the Telegraph buries that lede. The researchers studied Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, South Africa and the US, as well as 19 European countries, with a total population of 984 million, and looked at access to 67 newer cancer drugs. They found that the proportions of female cancer patients surviving five years beyond diagnosis in France, Spain, Germany, Italy were 71 per cent, 64 per cent, 63 per cent and 63 per cent respectively. In the UK it was 53 per cent. Among men the proportions still alive at five years in the same countries were 53 per cent, 50 per cent, 53 per cent and 48 per cent. Again in the UK it was lower at 43 per cent." The survivability rates beyond five years of diagnosis in the United States are far in excess of all of these socialized countries with socialized medicine. Here's the point, though, and it takes a while in the story for it to show up. Here's the reference in the story about the American system. "Dr. Nils Wilking, a clinical oncologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, said: "Our report highlights that in many countries new drugs are not reaching patients quickly enough and that this is having an adverse impact on patient survival. Where you live can determine whether you receive the best available treatment or not. To some extent this is determined by economic factors, but much of the variation between countries remains unexplained. In the US we have found that the survival of cancer patients is significantly related to the introduction of new oncology drugs.' ... The proportion of colorectal cancer patients with access to the drug Avastin was 10 times higher in the US than it was in Europe, with the UK having a lower uptake than the European average." United States health care saves more lives than socialized medicine, and yet socialized medicine is one of the building blocks of the Democrat Party's agenda, particularly Mrs. Bill Clinton's agenda. Now, it's the same thing with tax revenue that we were just discussing. If current tax rates are producing record amounts of revenue and rapid economic growth, why would you change it? If the US health care system is the best in the world, despite its flaws -- if it's the best in the world and people who come down with deadly diseases survive much longer here because of access to drugs much sooner and much cheaper than people who live in socialized countries have access to it -- why in the world would you change it? Well, there's a simple answer. Socialists want control. They want as much control over us as they can get. It's about power. It's about enlarging the State. It's about making you dependent, and that eliminates your threatening their power. The less wealth you have, the less mobility, freedom, the less of a threat you are to their power. This is liberalism through and through. Now you might ask: "How come so many average Americans are liberals and they're willing to give up this power?" Because they're dupes. I'm talking about the leaders. I'm talking about the people in Washington. I'm talking about the think tank leaders. I'm talking about the special interest groups. Liberals in this country, these doofuses that write the hateful comments on Internet blogs, they're just unhappy people in general. They want everybody else to be miserable with them anyway. They're probably jealous of people who do better than them and they want those people taken down a peg or two. They want everything the same. Everything the same. No inequality. No inequity. They want outcome of results. They're sickos and they're miserable and they're unhappy and they want everybody to join them in that. But you talk about ideology? Liberals believe this and conservatives believe this. It's really very, very simple. Conservatives believe in individual liberty and freedom and ambition so that people can become the best they can be, because it is believed that the greatest society and the greatest culture, the greatest country, is achieved by the greatest number of people pursuing excellence. Liberals don't have that faith in people and they don't want that kind of freedom. They want to be in charge. They want to have the power and they want people dependent because that is what enriches them in every which way you can imagine. END TRANSCRIPT Read the Background Material... CaptainsQuarters: US Health Care Saves More Lives Than Socialized Medicine

Answer: People in socialized medicine countries come here to have living related donor kidney transplants.