(Possibly triggering) cancers not bring noticed until late stage

[BrieAndOatcakes]

In the past 6 months three women in their 30s who I know have been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer (one ovary, two bowel). Two are still having treatment, one has sadly passed away. It's very sad, and also scary that it wasn't noticed for so long, one of them made several Drs visits and got nowhere. Why does this happen? Do Drs ignore the symptoms in younger people, or are the symptoms very subtle until it's too late?

Yes, it's called socialist medicine - works brilliantly until you are actually ill and require expensive tests/scans.

My mum had two years of appointments for her chest before it was properly looked into. She went through diagnoses (and medicating for) of asthma, copd and various other ‘generic’ complaints before she was sent for a scan and her cancer was discovered. By that point it was too late and she died within eight weeks.

Our NHS is amazing in an emergency, but it is being run to ground on the day to day stuff.

OP, I didn't go to the doctor because I didn't think there was anything wrong with me! It's too late for me but hopefully others will pick up on OC symptoms before I did.

My friend had a lump in her breast
She went back and forth to the gp who fobbed her off She was paranoid hyperchondriac it was a cyst / nothing to worry about It’s an infection etc etc

Eventually after months of this her mother came to the surgery and refused to move from the gp surgery until my friend got referred
Que lots of tutting and huffing from the ( male) gp about wasting his time and resources

Turned out She had stage 4 breast cancer which she died from shortly after

She was 17

Having early scans doesn't always mean an early diagnosis. For 2 years I had various abdominal ct and ultrasound scans. I had my gallbladder out and kidney stones removed. Verdict...my right ovary couldn't be seen clearly because I had a lot of bowel gas. Turned out Ithat bowel gas was actually stage 3 indolent NHL presenting as a 16cm x 12cm mass in my abdomen. By the time it was diagnosed, I was unable to walk and very ill.

The UK has worse cancer diagnosis and survival rates than other Western countries. Some of those countries have a free national health service, too. So there have to be other reasons. I remember reading some years ago that in Wales 1 in 4 cancers was detected in A&E. Not acceptable.

Sorry to hear that Sugarplum.

Having easy scans might not always mean an early diagnosis, not having early scans though always means no diagnosis.

Interestingly, the press report worse survival rates compared to rest of Europe. We’re certainly not at the bottom but it’s not a true measure as the overall statistics show the four most common causes of cancer death in the UK are different to those in Europe.
Is not as simple as comparing healthcare provision. Lifestyle is a huge influence and the UK has some significant lifestyle issues that places the U.K. population at greater risk of developing cancer and on survival.
That people die is terribly sad. That we are too worried about offending people by suggesting they take some personal responsibility is even sadder.
Many cancers could be prevented and survived if we collectively and individually reduced high risk behaviours - smoking, drinking alcohol, promiscuity (let’s hope HPV vaccination continues to reduce cervical cancer risk), obesity and the amount of processed meats eaten all have a huge impact on where the U.K. sits in the cancer statistics. Prevention is always better than treatment. Effective lifestyle changes after diagnosis are better than dying.

My DH got to stage 4 bowel cancer which had already spread to his liver with no symptoms at all, they only discovered it as he went in for an MRI as a follow up to having a stent put in

Effective lifestyle changes after diagnosis are better than dying.

You don't say.....

So sorry to hear that, TwitterQueen1 . I hope you're not in any pain.

the overall statistics show the four most common causes of cancer death in the UK are different to those in Europe

Do you mean the most common types of cancer here are different to those in the crash of Europe, Cherry? Or that cancers here are attributed to different things to in other countries? (Not sure if you mean cause of death as in primary tumour, or cause of cancer as in smoking.)

FWIW, the young women I know with recent cancer diagnoses lead healthy lifestyles. None smoked, all exercised and only one was overweight (not obese).

The most common cancers in U.K. differ to those in many areas of Europe.
Lifestyle isn’t, of course the whole answer. Triple negative breast cancers tend to affect younger women and have strong genetic element. However, most breast cancers affect older women and tend to be more affected by lifestyle. My point is you find breast cancer survivors insisting on green tea and a dairy free diet ( no evidence of effectiveness) whilst quaffing cocktails and bottles of wine quite happily. You find people complaining about the mortality statistics for lung cancer whilst lighting up.

Controversial perhaps but I actually believe the largest contributor to cancer is stress. I genuinely think having prolonged periods of stress alters our physiological make up, leading to genetic mutuations and then cancer. Not always, of course otherwise every stressed person would have cancer but I do think there’s something in it.

I think that would go some way to explaining why younger people who spend their lives in the gym / eating clean and green or whatever else / living fast and doing stressful jobs often get diagnosed with such aggressive cancers.

And people like my dad - who you often hear stories of his “type” - who is nearly 80 and never had so much as an ingrown toenail has lived a life of being a 40 a day smoker since he was 11 and has been borderline alcoholic for most of his life. He wouldn’t even know a vegetable if it hit him in the face. He is the happiest and least stressed person I’ve ever known.

Fairylea, stress may be a factor but statistically it’s a group of diseases of older people. The overwhelming majority of cancers occur later in life. The increase in cancer diagnosis is partly because people live longer and partly more accurate methods of diagnosis.
I can’t remember the exact numbers but something like 60% of men over 70 have a degree of prostate cancer. Usually this is going to be a low Gleason score cancer which can just be left with a watch and wait approach.

That’s interesting, thank you.

The one problem per appointment issue must contribute. I have persistent need to urinate. I am also fatigued. That’s most often 2 separate issues and I’m definitely most bothered by what I assume is a urine infection so I want that dealt with. But it never really goes away and at no point am I looked at as a “whole body” rather than just a urinary track.
Also my dm and her sister had breast cancer before the menopause aged 47 and 49 at diagnosis. My cousin is 42 and asked her gp about breast cancer screening and was almost laughed at and told to stop believing what she saw on tv. She can’t get any gp to accept this might be something she should worry about.

This is a really interesting but also such a sad thread to read. So many individual stories of sadness and loss

I do wonder about the stats for Europe vs UK. 50+ years ago people died and it was sad, but anything over what, 60? 65? was considered ok - a good life. How much investigation really went into checking what precisely the person died of and logging it into the stats?

Now everyone in the UK at least has to die for a reason, the reason must be logged and lessons learned. Does every country have as much rigour around the reporting process? Or is there a mismatch where some countries are very thorough and others more lax, so the stats can't really be compared?

I think GP's have an incredibly hard job, often the patient doesn't tell them all the symptoms because they think some are unconnected and irrelevant. I went in with sudden onset really bad wheezing (in and out) and tightness in my chest - and was referred for chest x ray and blood tests.

I had blood tests last week and later in the same day I had a call from the GP to check I was 'ok' as my blood sugar was 2.4. He was quizzing me if i was dizzy or tired at all. Well hell yeh but the consultant told me it was a side effect of a drug i'm on so i hadn't thought to mention it. Turns out the dizzyness and fatigue might actually be a real problem in its own right.

A GP has to piece together so much, and to be honest I think a lot of things are watch and wait - if it gets worse it gets investigated, if it stays the same or gets better its ignored. Sometimes, they get it wrong. I've thought for a while now that if there was anything seriously wrong with me (back and fore to GP for over a year) I would presumably be dead or noticeably worse by now, so presumably I'm ok!

Thanks for clarifying, CherryPavlova. It's interesting about the genetic component.

How much investigation really went into checking what precisely the person died of and logging it into the stats?

I'm not sure. I know cancer wasn't really talked about in the past though. My great-nan died in 1990 and apparently the word cancer wasn't mentioned - she went into hospital, was found to have a "growth" on her pancreas and died a few days later without really being given much info. My aunt said this contrasted a lot with her experience of cancer a few years ago (she's now in remission) where Drs gave her lots of info and even options.

So maybe we feel like there's more cancer around because it's talked about more? Though I'm sure that's not the only factor.

Today’s Metro headline is about a huge backlog in cancer screening for cervical cancer and long waiting lists for bowel and breast cancer screening.