Survey Says: Metastatic Breast Cancer Can Be a Lonely Experience

Reblogged from MBCNbuzz:

Click to visit the original post

By Katherine O'Brien, MBCN Secretary

"Jennie" was diagnosed with a metastatic recurrence a dozen years after being treated for early stage breast cancer. "What a shock," she wrote on a discussion board for people living with metastatic disease. "But some people's reaction has been even more of a shock."

She described what happened when she contacted a group that hosts exercise programs for breast cancer survivors.

Read more… 685 more words

Unfortunately, people with metastatic breast cancer often represent an uncomfortable reality for others...

Still In Search of the Next Metastatic Breast Cancer Celebrity Spokesperson…

As I read Angelina Jolie’s New York Times article, I thought, “Wow, a celebrity spokesperson for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer! That will really focus some attention on this issue!” And then I compared Jolie’s statements to those of other celebrities who have shared their own experiences with metastatic breast cancer.
This didn’t take very long because there aren’t any.

Edwards made her metastatic announcement in 2007.

Elizabeth Edwards is probably the closest we’ve come to having a high-profile spokesperson –certainly she is the only one I can think of since my own metastatic diagnosis in 2009. I wouldn’t care to be a celebrity let alone an ill celebrity in the national spotlight. I can’t comment on Edwards’ personal or political life. But I am so grateful that she talked about having metastatic breast cancer. I hope Cate Edwards and her siblings know what that meant to others living with the disease.

I remember coming across an article CNN’s Shahreen Abedin wrote in 2007. It was called “Surgeon Offers Answers on Metastatic Breast Cancer.” It was straightforward and, because Edwards had bone mets like me, I learned a lot about my specific metastatic issue.

CNN: What are survival rates for Stage IV metastatic breast cancer?

Dr. Rache Simmons: It depends on where the cancer is located. Patients can do very well for years if it’s isolated just to the bone. If there is a speck on the lungs or other organ that turns out to be cancer, that could mean a much worse prognosis, a much shorter life expectancy.

The bone is often the first place to spread to with breast cancer. Most breast cancer systemic recurrences (meaning the kinds that spread to the rest of the body) happen in the next two years after the first time the cancer is diagnosed. The next plateau is within five years. After that, it’s very rare to have recurrences. However, recurrences do still happen, even as late as 10 years later. But that’s very unusual.

For patients with small cancers and negative lymph nodes with no evidence of disease spread at the time of diagnosis, still about five to 10 percent of women end up developing metastatic disease.

If the recurrence happens later in the five-year period after diagnosis, rather than earlier, that’s a good sign; the patient will probably have a better response to the treatments. If the recurrence happens very soon after diagnosis, like six months, a year, or 18 months, then patients tend to do worse.

CNN: What would the standard treatment be once recurrence is diagnosed?

Simmons: Probably hormonal therapy. Mainly anti-estrogen types of treatments — like Tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors. Sometimes chemo is an option, either in addition to or instead of hormone therapy.

Sometimes radiation therapy to localized area, especially if the patient is in pain.

To find it accidentally, when the person is having no pain, is a very lucky thing. Usually what happens is a patient develops a pain and then gets X-rays — and then they find it. [The Q&A continues here.]

The article gave me a lot of  hope when I really needed it.

I will never forget the day in 2009 when I found out I was of one of 155,000 US people living with metastatic breast cancer. The oncologist said my breast cancer had spread to my lumbar vertebrae:  “Hopefully the disease will remain under control for a long time although an ultimate cure is probably unattainable.”

Most people with metastatic breast cancer have previously been treated for early stage breast cancer. Not me–I was Stage IV from my initial diagnosis, something that happens to between 6% and 10% of those living with MBC.

My cancer center’s library had two shelves of breast cancer pamphlets, mostly for women with early stage disease. One had chapters such as “Why You Should Get Prompt Attention,” and “Not All Lumps Are Cancer.”

Not very helpful to my particular situation.

Prior to my metastatic diagnosis, when it was thought I probably had Stage III breast cancer, my would-be surgeon gave me an 85-page booklet called “Breast Cancer: Treatment Guidelines for Patients.”

I am a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Illinois. I would rank “Breast Cancer: Treatment Guidelines for Patients” somewhere between “Beowulf” and James Joyce’s “Ulysses” in the annals of Massively Complex and Confusing Literature. Beyond the dense text, it also had flow charts seemingly inspired by a Chinese menu: Pick One From Each Column: Type, Tumor Size, HER2 and Receptor Status, etc.

Eventually, I came across “Diagnosis: Metastatic Breast Cancer…What Does It Mean For You?”

This slim MBCN brochure promised “up-to-date facts — demonstrating that today, more women and men with metastatic breast cancer are living longer, productive lives.”

The brochure featured 15 questions and answers about metastatic breast cancer. Question No. 1 was: “Am I going to die?”

This was certainly a top-of-mind question for me.

“Though you may be concerned by statistics you have heard, keep in mind that every individual is unique,” advised the MBCN brochure. “Because statistics are based on the general population, they do not reflect the experience of any one individual. Each person brings to the table a unique set of characteristics that influence her or his experience with breast cancer. In addition, no really accurate statistics predicting survival for metastatic breast cancer patients are available today.”

Those few sentences gave me a lot of hope.

“There is something in our national psyche that makes the diagnosis of cancer in a celebrity something more important,” noted ACS’ Dr. Len Lichtenfeld in 2008 following Christina Applegates’s revelation she’d had a BMX. ” They rise above the rest of us when sadness impacts their lives, and for many of us their disease becomes our disease…”

I hope Angela Jolie’s article will help someone else wrestling with hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer issues.

In one intervew Edwards touched on what she termed “the competing responsibilities” of being in in the public eye with metastatic breast cancer:  “One [responsibility] is to say to people with breast cancer, ‘This is really hard what you’re going through. Believe me, it’s hard for everybody. … This is perfectly normal to feel exhausted or perfectly normal to feel irritated sometimes, and don’t think less of yourself because those are your feelings.’ On the other hand, we don’t want to be treated as if we’re invalids. So when I’m feeling lousy, I don’t feel like I have the same permission to share that, but I do want people to take care of us — to take care of my sisters, in a sense.”

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Some Quick Facts About Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Following Angelina Jolie’s News

Angelina Jolie’s announcement that she is a carrier of the BRCA1 mutation and her subsequent decision to have a preventive double mastectomy has prompted a lot of discussion.

One question Jolie doesn’t touch on: the Supreme Court is currently determining if human genes can be patented. Myriad owns or licenses two human genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. If you need BRCA1 or BRCA2 testing, as Jolie did, Mryiad has your fate in their hands. The Supreme Court ruling is expected in June 2013. We’ll look at that issue in a separate post.

In the interim, here are some basic facts about breast and ovarian cancer:

      • Most cancer  just happens–it’s sporadic vs. hereditary. The majority of people who develop breast cancer didn’t inherit an abnormal breast cancer gene and have no family history. But about five percent of people have a genetic mutation which predisposes  them to cancer.
      • Two abnormal genes BRCA1 (BReast CAncer gene one) and BRCA2 (BReast CAncer gene two) are associated with a higher lifetime risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer. (FYI, I do NOT have this mutation, my cancer is considered sporadic; I may well have some mutation for which there’s currently no test.)
      • From the NCI FAQ: A woman who inherits a harmful mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 has an increased risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer at an early age (before menopause) and often has multiple, close family members who have been diagnosed with these diseases. Harmful BRCA1 mutations may also increase a woman’s risk of developing cervicaluterine,pancreatic, and colon cancer (12). Harmful BRCA2 mutations may additionally increase the risk of pancreatic cancer, stomach cancergallbladder and bile duct cancer, and melanoma(3).
      • All of us have BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes according to  BreastCancer.org: ” The function of the BRCA genes is to repair cell damage and keep breast cells growing normally. But when these genes contain abnormalities or mutations that are passed from generation to generation, the genes don’t function normally and breast cancer risk increases. Abnormal BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes may account for up to 10% of all breast cancers, or 1 out of every 10 cases.”
      • Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jews are 10 times more likely to have mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA 2 genes than the general population. Approximately 2.65 percent of the Ashkenazi Jewish population has a mutation in these genes, while only 0.2 percent of the general population carries these mutations.
      • Note that most U.S. Jews are  Ashkenazi (their ancestors came from Eastern Europe) vs. Sephardic  (their ancestors came from Spain, Portugal, North Africa and the Middle East).
      • Having an abnormal BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene doesn’t mean you will be diagnosed with breast cancer: Only seven percent of breast cancers in Ashkenazi women are caused by alterations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (See www.genome.gov/10000507.)

Related posts:

Perils of ill-informed celebrity spokespeople (kudos to Jolie):

http://ihatebreastcancer.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/help-wanted-where-is-our-metastatic-breast-cancer-celebrity-spokesperson/

“Sweet Valley High” ghostwriter explores her family’s history of ovarian and breast cancer:

http://ihatebreastcancer.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/hereditary-breast-and-ovarian-cancer-what-slyvia-pody-gail-and-elaine-had/

My experience with BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing:

http://ihatebreastcancer.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/i-didnt-realize-obrien-was-a-japanese-name/Image

Tagged , , , ,

the big C.

Reblogged from putting the grrrrr in Grimes:

Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post

Love means never having to say you're sorry.
- Jenny Cavalieri,  in "Love Story"

Over the past few weeks, my eyesight has rebounded from the medications and I have been attending a writing group for those with cancer.  The group has been immensely helpful in processing my "new normal" while on disability, as the writing helps to release my feelings and fears without judgement-- and hey, it's free and available 24 hours a day (perfect for late night hot flashes!).

Read more… 900 more words

Jenny shares a letter to Connor...her Big C.

Our Feel-Good War on Breast Cancer: Who Will Listen?

Patrick Hamilton/Newspix/Getty Images; Matt Born/The Star-News, via Associated Press; Gabrielle Plucknette/The New York Times; Sharpie, via Associated Press; U.S. Postal Service, via Associated Press.

Peggy Orenstein’s NYT Magazine article,  “Our Feel-Good War on Breast Cancer,”  is generating a lot of commentary on Twitter and various message boards.I summarized the article and offered some commentary on the MBCN blog. But I still have a few more things to say.

As Orenstein’s article demonstrates, breast cancer is complex disease. Here are some quick thoughts about breast cancer and screening:

I’m grateful the New York Times provided Orenstein with a platform to tell her story. The article’s run length is both intimidating (about 6,500 words) and frankly amazing (with today’s anemic ad revenues most journalists are routinely expected to perform the print equivalent of inscribing The Lord’s Prayer on a grain of rice).

It bothers me, however, that many of the messages in Orenstein’s aren’t new. They have  just never attained the same level of discussion. Consider Musa Mayer’s 2011 NBCC presentation “Theories of Metastasis“:

Mayer wondered why very few advocates focus on MBC. She offered the following theories:

  • Avoidance: Vast majority of advocates are primary breast cancer survivors at risk of recurrence: “We are what the pink crowd wants to forget because we are the painful reminders of what can happen.”
  • Expertise required: Lack of knowledge about complex MBC treatments and the different issues that women with MBC face
  • Lack of data: Incidence and prevalence of MBC unknown, so basic tools for advocacy are missing
  • Screening and early detection still a primary focus
  • Naïvete and fatalism both play a role
Musa's Mayers "Theories on Metastasis: Innovative Thinking, An Advocacy Perspective" can be downloaded at http://advancedbc.org/file/Mayer_NBCC_2011_0.pdf

Musa’s Mayers “Theories on Metastasis: Innovative
Thinking, An Advocacy Perspective” can be downloaded at http://advancedbc.org/file/Mayer_NBCC_2011_0.pdf

Dr. Gilbert Welch’s 2012 NTY Op-Ed piece, “Cancer Survivor or Victim of Over Diagnosis”  also covers much of the same ground as Orenstein’s 2013 article, and, indeed, Welch is prominently featured in Orenstein’s article.

Welch’s article ran on November 21, 2012. Did you read it? Did you share it on Facebook and Twitter? I know I didn’t. Yet when Orenstein reiterates many of Welch’s points lo these five months later, suddenly this same information is more compelling.

One of Orenstein’s central tenets is that early detection is not a breast cancer cure. That’s been said before here, here and here and I’m sure countless other places. In my own writing, I have frequently cited The National Breast Cancer Coalition’s 31 Myth and Truths.  Here is an excerpt from NBCC’s Myth #2:

…evidence shows that in the United States, it has been estimated that a woman’s cumulative risk for a false-positive result after ten mammograms is almost 50 percent; the risk of undergoing an unnecessary biopsy is almost 20 percent. In addition, women who are screened with mammography often have more aggressive and unneeded treatments. It is estimated that mammography screening has increased the number of mastectomies by 20 percent and the number of mastectomies and lumpectomies combined by 30 percent.

Women are regularly told that screening mammograms save lives. Evidence of actual mortality reduction is, in fact, conflicting and continues to be questioned by scientists, policy makers and members of the public. Since evidence does not currently significantly support, nor disprove the effectiveness of this test, receiving a screening mammogram should be a personal choice, not a medical mandate.

It’s also instructive to note what this 2009  NYT Op-Ed piece said:

Screening turns up lots of tiny abnormalities that are either not cancer or are slow-growing cancers that would never progress to the point of killing a woman and might not even become known to her…The scientific argument is that it is not worth taking such risks for the large number of women whose cancers grow too slowly to kill them. But it is difficult, in practice, to apply that kind of scientific analysis to the immediate questions confronting a woman and her doctor when a mammogram turns up an abnormality. The only real solution will come when researchers find a way to distinguish the dangerous, aggressive tumors that need to be excised from the more languorous ones that do not.

If you’ve read Orenstein’s current article, that last part will certainly sound familiar.

Orenstein’s 2013 article reminds us  that metastatic breast cancer research receives scant funding, noting that “only an estimated .5 percent of all National Cancer Institute grants since 1972 focus on metastasis.”

That point previously was made in Roni Caryn Rabin’s 2011 NYT story: “A Pink Ribbon Race Years Long”:

Since it is metastasis that ultimately kills, some advocates want more resources devoted to its study and treatment. Even though many cancer drugs are initially tested on patients with advanced disease, Danny Welch, an expert on metastasis, says only a few hundred scientists in the world are trying to understand the process. “It’s responsible for 90 percent of the morbidity and mortality, but gets less than 5 percent of the budget,” said Dr. Welch…

And Mayer, in her 2011 presentation says the same thing. She offers a pie chart from Science Daily, as well as this pull quote:

“Although there is considerable variation, the median spent on metastasis research is around 5% of total cancer research funding. Is this sufficient?” Jonathan Sleeman, Patricia S. Steeg, “Cancer metastasis as a therapeutic target,” European Journal of Cancer 46 ( 2010) 1177–1180 (free full text).

To paraphrase Yogi Berra, it’s deja vu all over again, isn’t it? Well, perhaps if we say it  loud enough and long enough people will start listening.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Our Feel-Good War on Breast Cancer: MBCN Responds

Reblogged from MBCNbuzz:

Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post

By Katherine O'Brien, MBCN Secretary

Editor's Note: Peggy Orenstein's April 25, 2013 article--the cover story for this Sunday' s New York Times' Magazine, demonstrates a remarkable depth and thoughtfulness. It is long--but well-worth the effort to read. For those looking for a quick overview, we've prepared the following summary and added our observations where appropriate. We hope it will aid readers' understanding of this important article as well as prompt further discussions.

Read more… 2,087 more words

MBCN highlights and comments on some key points on Peggy Orenstein's comprehensive article on breast cancer awareness vs. lives saved. It's a must read!

NYT Magazine Cover Story, “Our Feel-Good War on Breast Cancer” is Now Online

 

Peggy Orenstein’s cover story for the  New York Times Magazine,  “Our Feel-Good War on Breast Cancer” is now available online here: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/our-feel-good-war-on-breast-cancer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0#commentsContainer

Orenstein writes:

I used to believe that a mammogram saved my life…It was 1996, and I had just turned 35 when my doctor sent me for an initial screening — a relatively common practice at the time…

As study after study revealed the limits of screening — and the dangers of over treatment — a thought niggled at my consciousness. How much had my mammogram really mattered? Would the outcome have been the same had I bumped into the cancer on my own years later? It’s hard to argue with a good result. After all, I am alive and grateful to be here. But I’ve watched friends whose breast cancers were detected “early” die anyway. I’ve sweated out what blessedly turned out to be false alarms with many others.

Recently, a survey of three decades of screening published in November in The New England Journal of Medicine found that mammography’s impact is decidedly mixed: it does reduce, by a small percentage, the number of women who are told they have late-stage cancer, but it is far more likely to result in overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment, including surgery, weeks of radiation and potentially toxic drugs. And yet, mammography remains an unquestioned pillar of the pink-ribbon awareness movement….

Orenstein’s article is very long  and one that I would like to comment on after taking some time to carefully reread it.  Orenstein says she worked on this article for six months–she deserves kudos for her research. As someone with metastatic breast cancer, I am glad Orenstein represented that reality…. blogger Ann Silberman is quoted.

I hope you’ll take the time to read the article, I think you’ll find it of interest.

Newspaper Claims Most Breast Cancers in the US Are Cured: We Beg to Differ

From the original article: Vanderbilt University researchers are learning why some breast cancers are resistant to treatment. Source: http://www.tennessean.com

Update 4/24/2013 :
Reporter Tom Wilemon  invited me to call him. I appreciated his outreach and we did speak. I hope to continue the dialogue.
–KOB
Editor’s Note: Carol Marrero is an MBCN volunteer from Brentwood, TN.  “I read this article in today’s Tennessean newspaper and the ending really pissed me off,” she told myself and fellow MBCN board member Ginny Knackmuhs. “My friend Pam tells me that Dr. Arteaga is one of the top BRCA researchers in the world. So, I was even more surprised by his quote.”

We urged Carol to respond to the reporter, Tom Wilemon, to express her concerns and to ask him to do a follow up article or at least clarify the context of the original article. Wilemon declined. We present Marrero’s letter followed by  Wilemon’s reponse and welcome your thoughts.

Tom, 
In your April 23 article, “Scientists Try to Unravel Breast Cancer Mysteries,” you have perpetrated some egregious errors. The most glaring concerns this quote from Dr. Carlos  Arteaga of Vanderbilt, president-elect of the American Association for Cancer Research:

“Most breast cancers in the U.S. are cured today,” he said. “This is a disease for which we have many standard therapies that work. Of course, there’s the unfortunate patient for whom those therapies stop working. The advice I would give that individual is to seek a clinical trial — seek a center where they are trying to do cutting-edge research.”

There are currently 150,000 U.S. people living with metastatic breast cancer. Metastatic breast cancer remains incurable in 2013. Every year, metastatic breast cancer claims 40,000 lives. Now, does that sound like “most” to you?

Dayton, Ohio, has a population of 142,148. Imagine if every single citizen of Dayton had metastatic breast cancer and were therefore NOT CURED.

Niagra Falls, NY, has a population of 50,086.  Imagine if the entire NOT CURED population DIED EVERY SINGLE YEAR FOR THE PAST TWO DECADES.

Again we ask, does that sound like “most” breast cancer to you?

We are living with metastatic breast cancer. We will be on some form of treatment for the rest of our lives. When one stops working, we will go to the next one. One of us [MBCN volunteers] is “fortunate” in that her subtype of breast cancer has many treatment options. People with metastatic triple negative breast cancer, inflammatory breast cancer and other less common types, do in fact NOT have many standard therapies, let alone therapies that WORK.

Dr. Arteaga further references the “unfortunate” patient for whom standard therapies stop working and suggests he or she seek a clinical trial. A clinical trial should NOT  be considered some kind of last ditch effort for the truly hopeless as one might infer from this statement. Many breast cancer patients—early stage and metastatic alike–participate in clinical trials. They are not exclusively for someone who has exhausted all other options. Indeed, in some cases, a patient should go with a clinical trial–even if there are standard options available. It’s a case by case decision.

“Cured”  is word to be used with caution when discussing any kind or stage of breast cancer. Until a person with breast cancer dies of something else, there is always a chance breast cancer can come back. Breast cancer, sadly, is not like most other cancers in this regard. Lance Armstrong is cured of testicular cancer. But someone like Susan Henson of Goodlettsville, who was diagnosed with triple negative type cancer four years ago, cannot truly ever know she is cured of breast cancer.

Unfortunately, for about 20% of women like Susan Henson who have been treated for early stage breast cancer, will have a metastatic recurrence. (Triple negative breast cancer can be more aggressive–without knowing the facts of Henson’s case we can’t make any definitive statements.)

Early detection is NOT a cure. In general, the reason more people are surviving breast cancer is  we have better imaging technologies. The  average size lump found by first mammogram is about the size of a dime (~1.5 cm) but even tumors as small as pencil erasers can be seen.

The real problem is we don’t know WHAT we are looking at.

We don’t know  WHY some tumors spread beyond the breast.

We don’t know HOW to stop metastatic growth.

We are seeing more and more breast cancers earlier and earlier. In some cases, people are overtreated: It’s the oncological equivalent of using a shotgun to kill an ant. Many women may be diagnosed and treated for a cancer growing so slowly it might never have caused any symptoms or threatened their lives,
Perhaps you have misquoted Dr. Arteaga. We urge you to do a follow up piece correcting the misconceptions your article created. We further urge you to read this New York Times article from January 18, 2011:

While perceptions of the disease may have changed in recent years, the number of deaths it causes has remained fairly static, said Dr. Eric P. Winer, director of the breast oncology center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

“All too often, when people think about breast cancer, they think about it as a problem, it’s solved, and you lead a long and normal life; it’s a blip on the curve,” he said. “While that’s true for many people, each year approximately 40,000 people die of breast cancer — and they all die of metastatic disease. You can see why patients with metastatic disease may feel invisible within the advocacy community.”

Amen, Dr. Winer, amen.

Sincerely,

Carol Marrero
MBCN Volunteer,
Brentwood, TN

Here is Tom Wilemon’s  response:

Carol,

Reporter Tom Wilemon

Thanks for reading The Tennessean and taking the time to send me an email. Dr. Arteaga was speaking of breast cancers in general , not metastatic breast cancer. I can assure you his heart is in the right place and his team is doing all it can to find new therapies for all types of breast cancer. And yes, he and other researchers are working to understand the WHAT, HOW and WHY.

I transcribed my interview from a recording and then wrote the article. I do not believe I misquoted him. I’ve not heard complaints from Vanderbilt about the article. He was simply seeking to further clarify the point that not all breast cancers are the same. Some types do have accepted treatment regimens that can work – and even cure.

Tom Wilemon

Reporter

The Tennessean

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Report: LBBC's Annual Conference for Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer

Reblogged from The Sarcastic Boob:

Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post

I have attended a lot of conferences over the years.  Growing up I would watch television shows that featured story lines of men going away to "conventions" (for which their wives packed, of course) and getting into all sorts of trouble.  Sloppy drunk, affairs with stewardesses or a wanton career woman who was anything but moral.  My experiences have been nothing like that, though there was the time I saw the famous and naked Egyptologist passed out face down drunk and naked on the bed with the curtains wide open.  

Read more… 2,110 more words

A review of the LBBC Annual Conference for Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer. Some excellent observations especially as MBCN prepares for its Sept 21 conference in Houston this fall.

A Wake Up Call for Young People With Metastatic Breast Cancer...And All of Us

Reblogged from MBCNbuzz:

Click to visit the original post

By Katherine O”Brien, Secretary and PR Chair, MBCN

Do you remember "Love Story?" Oliver Barrett IV (Ryan O'Neal) and Jennifer Cavilleri (Ali McGraw) are the improbable lovers who defy parental disapproval and get married.

The only way to be surrounded by more sap would be to visit Vermont during the peak months of maple syrup production. Remember the hilarious send up…

Read more… 1,406 more words

Cancer at any age and any stage is a terrible thing. But it is especially cruel when it happens to young people–women like Bridget Spence, who at age 29 should have just been getting started in life. There are too many women like Bridget, too many of my friends.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,282 other followers