(Title image: Photo by Pierre Bamin on Unsplash)
Following on the heels of my Elle Macpherson post last week, I wanted to fill in some missing info…
To back up, former supermodel Elle Macpherson revealed that she took the holistic route when deciding to treat her breast cancer in 2017. However, most of the news stories that reported and offered opinions on her choices left out some critical information, as noted by this article in The Guardian (“Crucial information missing in Elle Macpherson breast cancer story, experts warn“). In this case, that information makes a big difference.
While it seems that Elle’s cancer was HER2-receptor positive, which suggests a more aggressive cancer, it was considered “non-invasive”, meaning it was contained within the mammary ducts. Often, this is referred to DCIS, or Ductal Carcinoma In Situ, and at this point those of us with personal knowledge of the disease will knowingly go, “OOooooooh.”
This is basically a “precancerous” mass of cells and often the treatments are more conservative. It’s considered stage 0. Yes, it becomes more dangerous if you do nothing, but clearly Elle did something: she had it removed.
(Photo by Bernard Hermant on Unsplash)
Beyond that, there are other conventional treatments offered, depending on how aggressively you want to go. This introduces the issue of potential overtreatment, which is gaining more attention among physicians and the public. It’s easy to throw the kitchen sink at anything that looks like cancer, but that increases the chances that patients unnecessarily experience damaging side effects. Not everyone needs to be smacked that hard with treatment.
So, given that Elle’s cancer was DCIS, her holistic treatment starts looking less extreme. In perspective, for stage 0, a radical mastectomy topped off with chemotherapy and other treatments leans towards overkill with minimal benefits, potentially affecting quality of life. So this is less about the types of Elle’s holistic treatments and much more about her cancer not requiring the same level of aggressive action as stage 1+ tumors.
However, very few of the news stories mentioned this. As a matter of fact, my own blog post last week might have confused the issue—I was writing without having all the facts. This underscores the importance of learning as much about your cancer as you can and understanding that your version of the disease may be very different from that of a friend with cancer.
In light of this, the pile-on regarding Elle’s treatment seems unfair…but only as it regards her personal situation. Because all the opinion pieces that came out against her choices, including my post, did so for a critical reason: that Elle’s story (“follow your heart”) may turn a cancer patient away from much-needed and beneficial treatment that can prolong their lives.
Get the facts, talk to your team, understand what you’re up against and what your risks are—yes, meditate, pray, exercise, change your diet. But don’t try to wish your cancer away.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To clarify, Elle did indeed decline even less radical treatments such as endocrine therapy, so one could argue that she’s still taking a risk. We don’t have a crystal ball to determine whether this was the wisest choice, Elle believed it was the right choice for her.
Frantic Shanti 