Christina Applegate has breast cancer

[Behind the Aegis]

Source: Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Actress Christina Applegate reportedly is undergoing treatment for breast cancer.

Ame Van Iden, publicist for the 36-year-old actress, released the following statement late Saturday:

"Christina Applegate was diagnosed with an early form of breast cancer. Benefiting from early detection through a doctor ordered MRI, the cancer is not life threatening. Christina is following the recommended treatment of her doctors and will have a full recovery."

Applegate has earned Emmy and Golden Globe nominations for her starring role in ABC's comedy "Samantha Who?" Applegate plays the title character, a young career woman who awakens from an eight-day coma remembering nothing about her past.



Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHRISTINA_APPLEGATE_CANCER?SITE=ILEDW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Skittles]

1. terrible

I wish her well

[ColbertWatcher]

3. She's only 36 years old! n/t

[DailyGrind51]

13. I was 28 when I was diagnosed and had three tumors removed,

two from the inside of my spine, before my 29th birthday! (I turn 57 in 9 days!)

[Skittles]

30. you're a true survivor!

yes indeed! :hi:

[ColbertWatcher]

35. Wow.

It's still shocking, though.

Glad to see you beat that crap!

Fight on.

[Weezer]

2. It's good that It was

diagnosed early.

Her doctors say she will have a full recovery.

:)

[rasputin1952]

4. The acceleration of Breast Cancer cases is something we should

be looking at closer. The environment, food additives, and a host of other catalysts may be responsible, the point being that something is happening that is bringing about the increase in case.

Just like smoking increases the risk for Lung Cancer, there is a "reason" why this is afflicting so many women, (and in a few cases, men). Just 50 years ago, BC was relatively rare, something happened that brought about the increase.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Surprisingly, The Cancer Rate Is Actually Decreasing

The number of cases (adjusted for age and increasing population) is actually decreasing. For example, see http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Decline_in_Cancer_Deaths_Doubles.asp

[rasputin1952]

6. Interesting, i was discussing this w/an oncology doc I know...

and he said the cases were increasing, but early detection was on the rise as more people became aware of the necessity of exams and mammographs. Something I'll have to look into...:hi:

[JeanGrey]

9. We should be throwing money at lung cancer. It kills

more women than breast cancer and all he other cancers COMBINED. And the fastest growing group are female NON smokers. But it will continue to be ignored.

[rasputin1952]

14. It is not just a case of throwing money at those that deal with

treatments and are looking for cures. There are several aspects this entire scenario, such as various forms of cancers that attack lungs and other tissues. I also believe that this has become something of a situation where there might be a cure/treatments that have either been overlooked or found, but there is so much money going into research, that it would actually be detrimental to some if a cure or other viable treatments would be found. I know that sounds jaded, but I have worked in the medical area, (caveat, not specifically w/cancers), and have been in hearing range of meetings where the thought of losing tens of millions of dollars for an institution was deemed by those who ran some programs was considered catastrophic. The days of 'noble ideology" in medicine have pretty well gone by the wayside. Medicine, like everything else is a business, and when business people rule the purse strings, ethics tend to be waylaid.

The massive increases of pollutants have gone a long way in creating this problem, there are carcinogens and other hazardous items all around us. Love Canal was a wake-up call, but the alarm was muffled long ago. Heavy metals in drinking water, and a host of other leachates are silently building up in our bodies every day, and w/bush and his FDA, EPA, and other agencies being neutered, the citizens have little knowledge of precisely what we are eating and drinking.

We have ot get back to standards that help keep us healthy, and when you have some idiot like bush saying that mercury and arsenic can be dumped into streams and other surface waters, we have a far greater problem than we really knew.

[JeanGrey]

18. Unfortunately, money ISN'T being put into lung cancer.

That is the problem.

[Hestia]

32. above ground nuclear testing in the 1950s & early 1960s catching up with us?

[pecwae]

10. I'm convinced our food supply

plays a major role. BHT, replacing iodine with bromide, over kill with folic acid, chemical laden water; the list goes on. I do wish an in-depth study would be done to find a defining moment, thus the culprits.

[rasputin1952]

15. As long as bush has the various agencies under asinine

appointees, the chances are slim that anything will come of this. When the FDA said that cattle that are possibly suspect for BSE, or "downers" could make it into the slaughterhouse, nary a wisp of protest came forward.

When they said that dumping raw mercury and arsenic into streams and rivers was OK, barely a sound was heard, as the media killed the stories off after 24 hours.

It is all about money, a few extra dollars in a wallet appears to trump any science or societal benefit.

[mitchum]

28. And I agree with you

the packaging of the food supply also plays a significant role

[FogerRox]

33. Hormones, GM, cant forget the big 2.

[Eurobabe]

12. agreed. it has become rampant! I just found out

another friend of mine from school who is just 40, was dx'd in May. Awful. Happening too frequently. :mad: :cry:

[rasputin1952]

16. The big question is what is causing BC, why the relatively sudden

uptick?

It has to be more than one thing too, there is a combination of things going on here...:(

[JeanGrey]

19. It is nothing compared to lung cancer.

[rasputin1952]

20. In a NYT's story, you are correct...

The National Cancer Institute has proposed a $6 billion budget in the war on cancer, allocating some funds for general cancer research and some for studies of specific cancers. But a review of the N.C.I.’s 2006 funding for five of the biggest cancers showed a wide disparity in the amounts of money spent relative to each cancer death and each new case of cancer. The data offer only a partial snapshot of public cancer spending in this country, as other government offices, such as the U.S. Department of Defense, also fund breast and prostate cancer research.

The big loser in the cancer funding race is lung cancer. It is the biggest cancer killer in the country, yet on a per-death basis receives the least N.C.I. funding among major cancers.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-does-it-add-up/

It is an interesting read.


On edit: stats for cancer research

Cancer (Deaths) N.C.I. Funding per Death
Lung (162,460) $1,630
Colon (55,170) $4,566
Breast (41,430) $13,452
Pancreas (32,300 ) $2,297
Prostate (27,350) $11,298

Cancer (New cases) N.C.I. Funding per New Case
Prostate (234,460) $1,318
Breast (214,640) $2,596
Lung (174,470) $1,518
Colon (106,680) $2,361
Pancreas (33,730) $2,200

[JeanGrey]

34. That's because of smoking. People are brainwashed and

don't understand THEY can get lung cancer, smoker or not. In fact one of the fastest growing groups are female non smokers. People think if you get lung cancer, you deserve it. THAT stigma is worse than AIDS.

[rasputin1952]

36. There is so much crud in the air, as well as everywhere else...

I think that we are slowly killing ourselves off...or Nature has finally had enough w/us.

[JeanGrey]

37. When I tell people my cancer is in my lungs (mets from

liver, pre transplant) I always get the same question: "Do you smoke?" When I say NO you should see the look of fear on some of their faces, and a lot of them try to get away as fast as possible. Some of them just look confused.

[rasputin1952]

38. That is because people want to believe that smoking alone is

the causation of pulmonary cancers, it isn't. there are many reasons why people get cancer, it is not based on one thing. Over the past 50 years, the cancer rates have skyrocketed, as have Type II diabetes, asthma, and a host of other things. People are not making the connections, even when science shows links, people would rather just find one thing to blame. The environment is being poisoned, and we are being poisoned as a result. It has been there for all to see, but people don't want to see truth, they are far too happy figuring they will be fine...right up to the point where they manifest a disease they somehow thought they were immune from.

[JeanGrey]

39. Yes sad but true. I see it all the time.

[wordpix]

26. and don't forget trihalomethanes in our drinking water---a known carcinogen

organic matter in water combines with chlorine used for disinfection at treatment plants=trihalomethanes. :scared:

[Hestia]

31. She stated on David Letterman that she eats lots of tofu - soy has links

to causing cancer (the unfermented kind, not the fermented).

[Festivito]

7. Good of her to come forward.

Wishing her well. Good job Christina.

[DFW]

8. It can be heritary as well

My wife's mother had cancer twice, and all of her sisters had it at least once. My wife
was diagnosed with breast cancer 7 years ago, and underwent brutal chemo and radiation.
She was 48 at the time.

Her mother is now 81 and looks 15 years younger, and all of her sisters lived into their
late 80s or late 90s. My wife has made a full recovery (so far!). Our daughters know this
and plan to get themselves checked frequently.

[rasputin1952]

17. Genetics certainly plays a role in many forms of cancer, there is

a genetic marker, I can't recall which one, for prostate cancer and some other forms of cancer. But there are times when there is no genetic road to trace back to. It is a combination of things, and serious research needs to be made. No dumping of dollars into coffers, progress must be made, and it could be, if it wasn't for the business aspect.

Hell, we took down polio in just a few years...yet we can't get much that is definitive in cancer, AIDS, diabetes, renal failure. There needs to be accountability for where those dollars are spent.

[Eurobabe]

11. More and more young people are getting breast cancer

:wtf: is going on??

My neighbor, across the street, is only 56, and it has moved into her brain and her bones. She was cancer free for about 18 mos. I don't think she is going to make it. This is a horrible disease :cry: :cry:

[LeftyMom]

22. That happened with my grandmother.

Iirc, she only had another 6 weeks or so once it spread to her brain, which was a good thing because she was in terrible pain from the bone cancer.

She was 57 when she died.

[Eurobabe]

24. Bone cancer is the pits

It claimed my grandfather, he was 85. I hadn't seen him for 3 mos, and when I did I was shocked, he was a skeleton. And so frail, pale, gaunt. I drove every weekend for 3 weeks from Philly to west of Cleveland, the last weekend I left, I knew I would never see him again. I got home on late Sunday, he died on Tuesday. :cry: :cry:

[Glorfindel]

21. I'm so sorry about this - she's a wonderfully talented young lady

I had the pleasure of seeing her performance in "Sweet Charity" on Broadway a few years back. I wish her all the best, and a rapid and complete recovery.

[davekriss]

23. My thoughts and prayers are with you, Christina (nt)

[DesertRat]

25. I really enjoy her on "Samantha Who"

I wish her the best and hope she has a full recovery.

[matt007]

27. I still have the hots for her and Kylie

You ladies are beautiful no matter what

[otohara]

29. Get Well Christina

she's sweet, and funny.