Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 I can't cite anything, but it is my understanding there is no evidence of that; Marie fact or fiction >Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting it) >that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY that >this should happen..... >rosemary > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 in EARE case, nf2 ers develop cancer. lets open up the old MS vs RS debate on this issue:) joanie Marie Drew wrote: > > I can't cite anything, but it is my understanding there is no evidence of > that; Marie > fact or fiction > > >Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting > it) > >that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY that > >this should happen..... > >rosemary > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 I have heard NASTY gossip Rosemary, but I sure hope their wrong ! MARCUS ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 I have heard NASTY gossip Rosemary, but I sure hope their wrong ! MARCUS ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 I have heard NASTY gossip Rosemary, but I sure hope their wrong ! MARCUS ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 Hi Joanie, are you referring to microsurgery vs radio surgery and saying that AN's treated with RS get cancer........did this actually ever get proven???? Where is the evidence? Actually my question was more general ie. according to the experts, Nf2ers should be one step closer to getting cancer independently of any RS to exacerbate. It seems to me that considering cancer affects 1 in 5, there is not much around here...... / on 23/11/00 2:46 AM, Joan Emerick at jemerick@... wrote: > in EARE case, nf2 ers develop cancer. > lets open up the old MS vs RS debate on this issue:) > > joanie > Marie Drew wrote: >> >> I can't cite anything, but it is my understanding there is no evidence of >> that; Marie >> fact or fiction >> >>> Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting >> it) >>> that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY that >>> this should happen..... >>> rosemary >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 Hi Joanie, are you referring to microsurgery vs radio surgery and saying that AN's treated with RS get cancer........did this actually ever get proven???? Where is the evidence? Actually my question was more general ie. according to the experts, Nf2ers should be one step closer to getting cancer independently of any RS to exacerbate. It seems to me that considering cancer affects 1 in 5, there is not much around here...... / on 23/11/00 2:46 AM, Joan Emerick at jemerick@... wrote: > in EARE case, nf2 ers develop cancer. > lets open up the old MS vs RS debate on this issue:) > > joanie > Marie Drew wrote: >> >> I can't cite anything, but it is my understanding there is no evidence of >> that; Marie >> fact or fiction >> >>> Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting >> it) >>> that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY that >>> this should happen..... >>> rosemary >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 Well that being the case, this is indeed curious. In fact, given the incredibly high incidence of cancer, there seems to be a remarkable absence amongst Nf2ers. What does this mean? The experts must have something wrong here..... on 23/11/00 1:53 AM, Marie Drew at mcdrew@... wrote: > I can't cite anything, but it is my understanding there is no evidence of > that; Marie > fact or fiction > > >> Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting > it) >> that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY that >> this should happen..... >> rosemary >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 Well that being the case, this is indeed curious. In fact, given the incredibly high incidence of cancer, there seems to be a remarkable absence amongst Nf2ers. What does this mean? The experts must have something wrong here..... on 23/11/00 1:53 AM, Marie Drew at mcdrew@... wrote: > I can't cite anything, but it is my understanding there is no evidence of > that; Marie > fact or fiction > > >> Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting > it) >> that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY that >> this should happen..... >> rosemary >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 Why are you saying there is an absense among NF2ers? My point was that there was not a higher than normal incidence; but I have two friends with NF2 that have both had masectomies; Marie fact or fiction >> >> >>> Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting >> it) >>> that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY that >>> this should happen..... >>> rosemary >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 Why are you saying there is an absense among NF2ers? My point was that there was not a higher than normal incidence; but I have two friends with NF2 that have both had masectomies; Marie fact or fiction >> >> >>> Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting >> it) >>> that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY that >>> this should happen..... >>> rosemary >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 Why are you saying there is an absense among NF2ers? My point was that there was not a higher than normal incidence; but I have two friends with NF2 that have both had masectomies; Marie fact or fiction >> >> >>> Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting >> it) >>> that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY that >>> this should happen..... >>> rosemary >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 i said that because I thought that you said that... Still, all I'm trying to work out is whether it is true what they believe about having a mutated Nf2 gene ie you are one step there in the 2-hit mechanism of getting cancer. That means that we should have considerably more prevalence than the normal incidence (possibly 50% more prevalence)......I don't think they are right about this, and I'm just trying to verify. Do we know of others with Nf2 and cancer?? rosemary on 23/11/00 1:02 PM, Marie Drew at mcdrew@... wrote: > Why are you saying there is an absense among NF2ers? My point was that > there was not a higher than normal incidence; but I have two friends with > NF2 that have both had masectomies; Marie > fact or fiction >>> >>> >>>> Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting >>> it) >>>> that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY > that >>>> this should happen..... >>>> rosemary >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 i said that because I thought that you said that... Still, all I'm trying to work out is whether it is true what they believe about having a mutated Nf2 gene ie you are one step there in the 2-hit mechanism of getting cancer. That means that we should have considerably more prevalence than the normal incidence (possibly 50% more prevalence)......I don't think they are right about this, and I'm just trying to verify. Do we know of others with Nf2 and cancer?? rosemary on 23/11/00 1:02 PM, Marie Drew at mcdrew@... wrote: > Why are you saying there is an absense among NF2ers? My point was that > there was not a higher than normal incidence; but I have two friends with > NF2 that have both had masectomies; Marie > fact or fiction >>> >>> >>>> Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting >>> it) >>>> that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY > that >>>> this should happen..... >>>> rosemary >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 i said that because I thought that you said that... Still, all I'm trying to work out is whether it is true what they believe about having a mutated Nf2 gene ie you are one step there in the 2-hit mechanism of getting cancer. That means that we should have considerably more prevalence than the normal incidence (possibly 50% more prevalence)......I don't think they are right about this, and I'm just trying to verify. Do we know of others with Nf2 and cancer?? rosemary on 23/11/00 1:02 PM, Marie Drew at mcdrew@... wrote: > Why are you saying there is an absense among NF2ers? My point was that > there was not a higher than normal incidence; but I have two friends with > NF2 that have both had masectomies; Marie > fact or fiction >>> >>> >>>> Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting >>> it) >>>> that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY > that >>>> this should happen..... >>>> rosemary >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2000 Report Share Posted November 23, 2000 Rosemary ! A few of us here have had some weird illnesses other than NF 2 . Marcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2000 Report Share Posted November 23, 2000 Rosemary ! A few of us here have had some weird illnesses other than NF 2 . Marcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2000 Report Share Posted November 23, 2000 ok, I'll bite:) I asked my rad on (Radiation Oncologist)' specically this Q. He said no to it. To his knowledge nf2 is and never will be cancer. The cancer is another disease totally. I asked because I was worried that about my FRS, in that I would develop cancer from it. But, the percentage to get cancer is so high, and getting higher!! the risk of FRS raising that percent is very slight to not at all. It stands to reason that all radiation effects human tissue to become cancerous, but I don't think they choose to acknowledge that link( at least not the Dr I spoke to). Also a true story, one would not chose radiation therapy for the fun of it either, weighing out the good and the bad, you make your choice. What I have heard is * That NF2 and cancer are unrelated diseases * the cancer rate of NF2 is 1 tumor in a 100 of being cancerous *that FRS does not " cause " cancer (personally I think it does) *Gamma will cause cancer in 30 years There are SO MANY unanswered Q's and Q's with answers that just don't ring true. So any info you have, I'll read:) -Lori:) fact or fiction > >>> > >>> > >>>> Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting > >>> it) > >>>> that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY > > that > >>>> this should happen..... > >>>> rosemary > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2000 Report Share Posted November 23, 2000 ok, I'll bite:) I asked my rad on (Radiation Oncologist)' specically this Q. He said no to it. To his knowledge nf2 is and never will be cancer. The cancer is another disease totally. I asked because I was worried that about my FRS, in that I would develop cancer from it. But, the percentage to get cancer is so high, and getting higher!! the risk of FRS raising that percent is very slight to not at all. It stands to reason that all radiation effects human tissue to become cancerous, but I don't think they choose to acknowledge that link( at least not the Dr I spoke to). Also a true story, one would not chose radiation therapy for the fun of it either, weighing out the good and the bad, you make your choice. What I have heard is * That NF2 and cancer are unrelated diseases * the cancer rate of NF2 is 1 tumor in a 100 of being cancerous *that FRS does not " cause " cancer (personally I think it does) *Gamma will cause cancer in 30 years There are SO MANY unanswered Q's and Q's with answers that just don't ring true. So any info you have, I'll read:) -Lori:) fact or fiction > >>> > >>> > >>>> Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting > >>> it) > >>>> that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY > > that > >>>> this should happen..... > >>>> rosemary > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2000 Report Share Posted November 23, 2000 ok, I'll bite:) I asked my rad on (Radiation Oncologist)' specically this Q. He said no to it. To his knowledge nf2 is and never will be cancer. The cancer is another disease totally. I asked because I was worried that about my FRS, in that I would develop cancer from it. But, the percentage to get cancer is so high, and getting higher!! the risk of FRS raising that percent is very slight to not at all. It stands to reason that all radiation effects human tissue to become cancerous, but I don't think they choose to acknowledge that link( at least not the Dr I spoke to). Also a true story, one would not chose radiation therapy for the fun of it either, weighing out the good and the bad, you make your choice. What I have heard is * That NF2 and cancer are unrelated diseases * the cancer rate of NF2 is 1 tumor in a 100 of being cancerous *that FRS does not " cause " cancer (personally I think it does) *Gamma will cause cancer in 30 years There are SO MANY unanswered Q's and Q's with answers that just don't ring true. So any info you have, I'll read:) -Lori:) fact or fiction > >>> > >>> > >>>> Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting > >>> it) > >>>> that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY > > that > >>>> this should happen..... > >>>> rosemary > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2000 Report Share Posted November 23, 2000 Hello Rosemary, I had Cancer, a tumour in the Brainstem called a Brainstem Glioma. Yes it is in the Brainstem. But I was told it was not, like the rest of my tumours, NF2 related. The reasons given: >because it is a Brainstem Gliomsa, starting growth in the brainstem as opposed to growing on and or into the brainstem. This also being the reason for its name. >NF2 tumors are not cancer tumors. The Glioma is. Since I joined the crew I have heard of only one other member mentioning having this tumour, the Brainstem Glioma. Following radiation treatment of this tumour, one year later, I developed another at the upper part of the Brainstem, the first one had been just above the medullary junction (where the brainstem and spine/ spinal cord join). This I was told was likely because of the radiation, that following radiation treatments cancer may move and show in a new location. But given the very low success rate of Chemotherapy drugs in respect to treatment of brain tumours, radiation was really the best choice by far. There was something said about very few Chemo drugs being successful at penetrating the head/neck barrier to reach the brain. I wish I could remember the wording of the group of Drs in this respect. But this was not only prairie doc talk, they consulted with drs from larger centres in Canada. What they told me in respect to Chemo-drugs and radiation is supported by the Brain tumour foundation info. As well I have heard the theory of tumors the same as what was previously treated by radiation showing following treatment in other areas of the body, a few times since in various articles. I had 28 treatments of FRS on my first Glioma, because this was not focused to any great respect it could not be repeated to the upper area and the Drs decided it best to go with Chemo. They would tell me nothing of the level of cancer involved with the second tumour and told me following the 1 1/2 year treatments till it disappeaed, that Chemo is not successful in treating these tumours. I have also been told the same of the bi-lateral Jugular Foreamen. That they are not NF2 tumors. But I have been told the bi-lateral AN's, meningiomas, all the spinal tumours but the Astrocytoma, the epedymomas, neurofibromas, neuromas,scwannoma's and oh gosh, what is the name of the 2 that effect and cause such pain in my face as well as the 3 in the sinus area, anyway, those 5 as well, I am told are all NF2 tumours. Has anyone else been told these things in respect to cancer, radiation and/or their tumours? Sheryn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2000 Report Share Posted November 23, 2000 Hello Rosemary, I had Cancer, a tumour in the Brainstem called a Brainstem Glioma. Yes it is in the Brainstem. But I was told it was not, like the rest of my tumours, NF2 related. The reasons given: >because it is a Brainstem Gliomsa, starting growth in the brainstem as opposed to growing on and or into the brainstem. This also being the reason for its name. >NF2 tumors are not cancer tumors. The Glioma is. Since I joined the crew I have heard of only one other member mentioning having this tumour, the Brainstem Glioma. Following radiation treatment of this tumour, one year later, I developed another at the upper part of the Brainstem, the first one had been just above the medullary junction (where the brainstem and spine/ spinal cord join). This I was told was likely because of the radiation, that following radiation treatments cancer may move and show in a new location. But given the very low success rate of Chemotherapy drugs in respect to treatment of brain tumours, radiation was really the best choice by far. There was something said about very few Chemo drugs being successful at penetrating the head/neck barrier to reach the brain. I wish I could remember the wording of the group of Drs in this respect. But this was not only prairie doc talk, they consulted with drs from larger centres in Canada. What they told me in respect to Chemo-drugs and radiation is supported by the Brain tumour foundation info. As well I have heard the theory of tumors the same as what was previously treated by radiation showing following treatment in other areas of the body, a few times since in various articles. I had 28 treatments of FRS on my first Glioma, because this was not focused to any great respect it could not be repeated to the upper area and the Drs decided it best to go with Chemo. They would tell me nothing of the level of cancer involved with the second tumour and told me following the 1 1/2 year treatments till it disappeaed, that Chemo is not successful in treating these tumours. I have also been told the same of the bi-lateral Jugular Foreamen. That they are not NF2 tumors. But I have been told the bi-lateral AN's, meningiomas, all the spinal tumours but the Astrocytoma, the epedymomas, neurofibromas, neuromas,scwannoma's and oh gosh, what is the name of the 2 that effect and cause such pain in my face as well as the 3 in the sinus area, anyway, those 5 as well, I am told are all NF2 tumours. Has anyone else been told these things in respect to cancer, radiation and/or their tumours? Sheryn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2000 Report Share Posted November 23, 2000 Hello Rosemary, I had Cancer, a tumour in the Brainstem called a Brainstem Glioma. Yes it is in the Brainstem. But I was told it was not, like the rest of my tumours, NF2 related. The reasons given: >because it is a Brainstem Gliomsa, starting growth in the brainstem as opposed to growing on and or into the brainstem. This also being the reason for its name. >NF2 tumors are not cancer tumors. The Glioma is. Since I joined the crew I have heard of only one other member mentioning having this tumour, the Brainstem Glioma. Following radiation treatment of this tumour, one year later, I developed another at the upper part of the Brainstem, the first one had been just above the medullary junction (where the brainstem and spine/ spinal cord join). This I was told was likely because of the radiation, that following radiation treatments cancer may move and show in a new location. But given the very low success rate of Chemotherapy drugs in respect to treatment of brain tumours, radiation was really the best choice by far. There was something said about very few Chemo drugs being successful at penetrating the head/neck barrier to reach the brain. I wish I could remember the wording of the group of Drs in this respect. But this was not only prairie doc talk, they consulted with drs from larger centres in Canada. What they told me in respect to Chemo-drugs and radiation is supported by the Brain tumour foundation info. As well I have heard the theory of tumors the same as what was previously treated by radiation showing following treatment in other areas of the body, a few times since in various articles. I had 28 treatments of FRS on my first Glioma, because this was not focused to any great respect it could not be repeated to the upper area and the Drs decided it best to go with Chemo. They would tell me nothing of the level of cancer involved with the second tumour and told me following the 1 1/2 year treatments till it disappeaed, that Chemo is not successful in treating these tumours. I have also been told the same of the bi-lateral Jugular Foreamen. That they are not NF2 tumors. But I have been told the bi-lateral AN's, meningiomas, all the spinal tumours but the Astrocytoma, the epedymomas, neurofibromas, neuromas,scwannoma's and oh gosh, what is the name of the 2 that effect and cause such pain in my face as well as the 3 in the sinus area, anyway, those 5 as well, I am told are all NF2 tumours. Has anyone else been told these things in respect to cancer, radiation and/or their tumours? Sheryn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2000 Report Share Posted November 23, 2000 on 24/11/00 9:07 AM, Fusca at ffusca@... wrote: You mean gareth , which article?? The thing is, cancer is a 2-hit mechanism, so with a mutated Nf2 gene, you are already one step there. Children who develop cancer are pressumed to have inherited a mutated cancer gene, and then gone onto accumulate the 6-10 mutations they think are required to provide the second hit.....Our bodies create mutated genes all the time....environmental, diet etc. I think only 1 in 10000( or is it 1000??) of mutated genes DON'T get picked up and corrected by our immune system, repair DNA genes, etc. So, they think, understandably, that Nf2ers should have a much higher incidence of cancer. Like with a mutated nf2 gene, you are permanently half way there...... This is how I understand the literature anyway, correct me if I am wrong. My point is......I don't think this appears to happen or is statistically borne out by the Nf2 population (with a normal cancer incidence of 1-5), which makes me wonder about a lot of other things they presume about Nf2...... > Rosemary, > > I think it is true that if you have NF2, your chances of getting cancer are > higher than the general population (but they are still small). There have been > studies on this. The article from the UK Dr (can't recall the name at the > moment) gave the actual numbers. > > If you have RS, the chances will get higher. How much higher is very open to > debate and (in my opinion) no-one really knows. > > > > ---------- > From: Prowse > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 10:35 PM > To: NF2_Crewegroups > Subject: Re: fact or fiction > > i said that because I thought that you said that... Still, all I'm trying to > work out is whether it is true what they believe about having a mutated Nf2 > gene ie you are one step there in the 2-hit mechanism of getting cancer. > That means that we should have considerably more prevalence than the > normal incidence (possibly 50% more prevalence)......I don't think they are > right about this, and I'm just trying to verify. > > Do we know of others with Nf2 and cancer?? > rosemary > > > > on 23/11/00 1:02 PM, Marie Drew at mcdrew@... wrote: > >> Why are you saying there is an absense among NF2ers? My point was that >> there was not a higher than normal incidence; but I have two friends with >> NF2 that have both had masectomies; Marie >> fact or fiction >>>> >>>> >>>>> Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting >>>> it) >>>>> that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY >> that >>>>> this should happen..... >>>>> rosemary >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2000 Report Share Posted November 23, 2000 on 24/11/00 9:07 AM, Fusca at ffusca@... wrote: You mean gareth , which article?? The thing is, cancer is a 2-hit mechanism, so with a mutated Nf2 gene, you are already one step there. Children who develop cancer are pressumed to have inherited a mutated cancer gene, and then gone onto accumulate the 6-10 mutations they think are required to provide the second hit.....Our bodies create mutated genes all the time....environmental, diet etc. I think only 1 in 10000( or is it 1000??) of mutated genes DON'T get picked up and corrected by our immune system, repair DNA genes, etc. So, they think, understandably, that Nf2ers should have a much higher incidence of cancer. Like with a mutated nf2 gene, you are permanently half way there...... This is how I understand the literature anyway, correct me if I am wrong. My point is......I don't think this appears to happen or is statistically borne out by the Nf2 population (with a normal cancer incidence of 1-5), which makes me wonder about a lot of other things they presume about Nf2...... > Rosemary, > > I think it is true that if you have NF2, your chances of getting cancer are > higher than the general population (but they are still small). There have been > studies on this. The article from the UK Dr (can't recall the name at the > moment) gave the actual numbers. > > If you have RS, the chances will get higher. How much higher is very open to > debate and (in my opinion) no-one really knows. > > > > ---------- > From: Prowse > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 10:35 PM > To: NF2_Crewegroups > Subject: Re: fact or fiction > > i said that because I thought that you said that... Still, all I'm trying to > work out is whether it is true what they believe about having a mutated Nf2 > gene ie you are one step there in the 2-hit mechanism of getting cancer. > That means that we should have considerably more prevalence than the > normal incidence (possibly 50% more prevalence)......I don't think they are > right about this, and I'm just trying to verify. > > Do we know of others with Nf2 and cancer?? > rosemary > > > > on 23/11/00 1:02 PM, Marie Drew at mcdrew@... wrote: > >> Why are you saying there is an absense among NF2ers? My point was that >> there was not a higher than normal incidence; but I have two friends with >> NF2 that have both had masectomies; Marie >> fact or fiction >>>> >>>> >>>>> Can I ask the crew has there been any clinical evidence (someone getting >>>> it) >>>>> that Nf2ers are more prone to developing cancer ?? I know they SAY >> that >>>>> this should happen..... >>>>> rosemary >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.