Author Topic: Newer incidence rate for ANs  (Read 8548 times)

Kaybo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4232
Re: Newer incidence rate for ANs
« Reply #15 on: September 18, 2010, 04:34:11 pm »
Pirate socks, of course!!   ::)

K   ;D
Translab 12/95@Houston Methodist(Baylor College of Medicine)for "HUGE" tumor-no size specified
25 yrs then-14 hour surgery-stroke
12/7 Graft 1/97
Gold Weight x 5
SSD
Facial Paralysis-R(no movement or feelings in face,mouth,eye)
T3-3/08
Great life!

cakulmom

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 45
    • My Son-My Inspiration
Re: Newer incidence rate for ANs
« Reply #16 on: September 18, 2010, 06:48:34 pm »
And when it happens to you or someone you love, only one number matters--#1.
Age: 61 on Jan. 4.  Retrosigmoid for 2.2 cm AN on Nov. 30, 2010. Loyola-Leonetti & Anderson.
SSD left AN side.
There is nothing "benign" about this tumor.

ppearl214

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7449
  • ANA Forum Policewoman - PBW Cursed Cruise Director
Re: Newer incidence rate for ANs
« Reply #17 on: September 18, 2010, 07:01:38 pm »
Pirate socks, of course!!   ::)

K   ;D

Mine are washed, ready for wearing for the next round of AN'ers being treated or Capt Deb and her upcoming surgery. :)

Phyl, PBW Cursed Cruise Director
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness", Capt Jack Sparrow - Davy Jones Locker, "Pirates of the Carribbean - At World's End"

leapyrtwins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10826
  • I am a success story!
Re: Newer incidence rate for ANs
« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2010, 07:34:32 pm »
And when it happens to you or someone you love, only one number matters--#1.

Absolutely!!
Retrosig 5/31/07 Drs. Battista & Kazan (Hinsdale, Illinois)
Left AN 3.0 cm (1.5 cm @ diagnosis 6 wks prior) SSD. BAHA implant 3/4/08 (Dr. Battista) Divino 6/4/08  BP100 4/2010 BAHA 5 8/2015

I don't actually "make" trouble..just kind of attract it, fine tune it, and apply it in new and exciting ways

Funnydream

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
  • Texas in my room crying. Guys can't cry. DARN IT.
Re: Newer incidence rate for ANs
« Reply #19 on: September 18, 2010, 07:50:09 pm »
If its true that the rates are going up.

Then this is very bad news for the human race.

But I imagine if companies can come out with better ways to fix and detect ANs it won't matter in like 100 years.

My 1st thought was cell phones. lol.
Age 42, AN left, 2.8cm
left hearing gone, balance getting better.
16 hour Surgery 9-27-10 CSF leak fix 10-4-10 3 hours
Miracle I feel my left face and tongue again.
If we evolved from monkeys into humans? When do we stop being human and become something else? What would that something else be?

ddaybrat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 64
    • The Brat's Blog
Re: Newer incidence rate for ANs
« Reply #20 on: September 18, 2010, 09:53:06 pm »
I, for one, enjoyed all the statistics.  But then, math has always been my favorite subject.  I did find them interesting though.

I'd like to think the higher incidence of ANs is related to the more frequent use of MRIs.  The thought that my cell phone might have caused my AN is rather scary as my tumor is in the ear that I always used for my cell phone.  Even now with my left ear being totally deaf, I still put the cell to my ear and then can't figure out why I can't hear anything.  It's always been so much easier to hold my phone with my left hand and listen with my left ear while I wrote with my right hand.  Does this mean I may have another AN in my future on the right side since I now listen to my cell with my right ear?  Only time will tell.

1.4 x 1.5 x 0.4 cm AN on left side
retromastoid craniectomy 3/31/2010
Dr. Randy Gehring - Lafayette, IN
Tinnitis, deafness
Vestibular nerves destroyed
4 months post-op:
Facial movement returning
Paralytic ectopic repair on lower lid
Transverse ligament adjustment on upper lid

free2be

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
Re: Newer incidence rate for ANs
« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2010, 01:19:10 pm »
Well...I have to say I seem to have started quite a dialogue here. All I know is that which I quoted from a specialist in the field, and as I mentioned somewhere previously, my ENT quoted a higher number also.

BUT, this post was for FYI and I didn't mean for it to create a controversy over statistics and who wants them, and who doesn't. Whew! I thought the "community" would be interested to know these numbers and there are articles out there indicating that our ANs aren't as rare as we think...but, no it doesn't matter as far as practicality and how it effects us individually. It wasn't meant to. And, it wasn't about the treatments or complications, just incidence rates.

It is interesting to see how a conversation evolves. Kind of reminds me of the gossip game where you whisper in people's ears around a circle and see what comes out in the end compared to what was said first. Anyway...

The subject that "ddaybrat" noted of cell phone use and "the" AN ear is of interest to me. Has anyone ever taken a poll to see how this correlates. I'm afraid to start anything else at this point  :o

Connie
Diagnosed Nov. 2008 Right AN 7 mm x 9 mm
Incremental MRIs enhancing mass
June 2010 1.4 cm x 0.9 cm extension into the CP angle
Pre-CK Stanford measurements 1.6 X 1.1 cm
9/29/10 - 10/1/10 CK completed with Dr Steven Chang and Soltys, Stanford.
6-month thru three year (8/13) follow ups MRI: stable

Jim Scott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7241
  • 1943-2020 Please keep Jim's family in your hearts
Re: Newer incidence rate for ANs
« Reply #22 on: September 19, 2010, 02:26:49 pm »
Connie ~

Yes, the discussion regarding statistics evolved, as threads often do but in the final analysis, as we noted, statistics are just that.  They certainly have their place but can only go so far and, as we all know, statistics can be manipulated and skewed, just as a poll can, so even absolute numbers may not be able to offer the complete 'picture' in a given situation, specifically, AN treatment options.

As for the cell phone/AN issue, that has been debated here quite often.  Do a 'search' using 'cell phone' and you'll find the threads.  While some folks are convinced there is a connection (and take precautions) I'm a hard-core skeptic (who only rarely uses my cell phone) on that issue but I don't pretend to have a definitive answer.

Please don't be skittish about broaching 'controversial' issues.  As long as a subject retains some connection to acoustic neuromas and AN patients, it is permissible, although be sure to place it in the proper forum.  We're all entitled to an opinion.  I've posted more than one lengthy treatise regarding the new health care law - and a few other subjects.  Just be civil and factual and all will be well.   

Jim
4.5 cm AN diagnosed 5/06.  Retrosigmoid surgery 6/06.  Follow-up FSR completed 10/06.  Tumor shrinkage & necrosis noted on last MRI.  Life is good. 

Life is not the way it's supposed to be. It's the way it is.  The way we cope with it is what makes the difference.

PaulW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
Re: Newer incidence rate for ANs
« Reply #23 on: September 19, 2010, 04:00:49 pm »
There is no corelation to AN and the side which you use your mobile phone.
So it is unlikely to be caused by mobile phones.
Many people reporting single sided deafness in their 60's in the past were simply ignored. (thats what happens when you get old!)
If you went for a CT scan small AN's were undetectable.
MRI's were very expensive and were not ordered for patients.
Even today many AN's remain undetected as balance issues, tinnitus and some loss of hearing are still not routinely followed up with an MRI until the symptoms become worse or chronic.
10x5x5mm AN
Sudden Partial hearing loss 5/28/10
Diagnosed 7/4/10
CK 7/27/10
2/21/11 Swelling 13x6x7mm
10/16/11 Hearing returned, balance improved. Feel totally back to normal most days
3/1/12 Sudden Hearing loss, steroids, hearing back.
9/16/13 Life is just like before my AN. ALL Good!

annamaria

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 89
Re: Newer incidence rate for ANs
« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2010, 04:41:54 pm »
Related to the cell phone question, below is lliterally today's news as you can see at www.pubmed.gov and serching under acoustic neuroma (was published this Friday) (however, keep in mind that the news may be different tomorrow) (personally, in terms of approach to decision-making I try to rely on recently-published data good-quality data to the degree possible over other methods ...)

= = = = =

Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2010 Aug;10(3):245-250.

EVALUATION OF CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (EMF).
Bayazit V, Bayram B, Pala Z, Atan O.

Department of Biology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Mus Alparslan University, 49100, Mus,Turkey.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields on human. There are many effects of electromagnetic fields on human such as cancer, epidemiology, acute and chronic effects. These effects vary according to the field strength and environmental conditions. There have been many instances of harmful effects of electromagnetic fields from such seemingly innocuous devices as mobile phones, computers, power lines and domestic wiring. The balance of epidemiologic evidence indicates that mobile phone use of less than 10 years does not pose any increased risk of brain tumour or acoustic neuroma. For long-term use, data are sparse, and the following conclusions are therefore uncertain and tentative.

= = = = =

Annamaria


leapyrtwins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10826
  • I am a success story!
Re: Newer incidence rate for ANs
« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2010, 06:45:34 pm »
Jim's right; there are numerous threads about cell phones and ANs on this Forum.  The ANA also released some info on the theory not too long ago.  Don't remember what their info said though  ???

There's also another very interesting theory that involves ANs and fish hatcheries, of all things.  I think Steve Gerrard led us to the fish hatchery theory.  If you want some amusement, search on "fish hatchery" and read the posts  :D

Like Jim, Paul W, and lots of others, I'm very skeptical of the cell phone theory.  Up until approximately 3 years prior to my diagnosis, I'd never used a cell phone and when I finally did get one I used it sparingly. 

I agree with Paul W that there are just more and more people being diagnosed these days.  In the past I think lots of people died - from other causes - with an AN and no one was even aware of it.  And as Paul W pointed out, lots of people who get up there in years end up with hearing loss and no one really thinks twice about it.

That's one of the reasons I think it's very important to have an organization like the ANA - to raise awareness of ANs (among other things).

Jan
Retrosig 5/31/07 Drs. Battista & Kazan (Hinsdale, Illinois)
Left AN 3.0 cm (1.5 cm @ diagnosis 6 wks prior) SSD. BAHA implant 3/4/08 (Dr. Battista) Divino 6/4/08  BP100 4/2010 BAHA 5 8/2015

I don't actually "make" trouble..just kind of attract it, fine tune it, and apply it in new and exciting ways

ppearl214

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7449
  • ANA Forum Policewoman - PBW Cursed Cruise Director
Re: Newer incidence rate for ANs
« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2010, 06:54:40 pm »
That's one of the reasons I think it's very important to have an organization like the ANA - to raise awareness of ANs (among other things).

In line with Jan's comments, please see this article below, from the ANA "Notes" June 2010 Newsletter regarding cellphones (oy, not again!) and their stance on this issue, with the backing of the ANA Medical Advisory Board:

Cell Phones and AcousticNeuroma

"The widespread use of cell phones and many studies on cell phones and possible associated health risks prompted the ANA Board of Directors to initiate a statement regarding cell phone usage and acoustic neuroma. This statement is endorsed by our ANAMedical Advisory Board. This is intended as a cautionary alert. This information is not intended to take the place of advice and guidance from your personal physician. You should always consult with your physician with questions and concerns. It is important to remember that early diagnosis of small tumors provides more treatment options and greater success, with the greater possibility of fewer long-term complications.

There has been much interest and controversy in the past decade regarding the possible role of mobile phones as a cause of brain tumors. The use of cell phones has become ubiquitous round the world and if they played a causative role in a disease process, even such as causing a benign tumor like an acoustic neuroma (AN), it would have tremendous public health implications.

According to the International Telecommunication Union, by 2006, 91 persons out of 100 were cell phone subscribers in developed countries. As many as 32 persons per 100 were subscribers in the developing world. There have been 25 epidemiologic studies published between 1999 and 2008 trying to examine the role of mobile phones in the etiology of brain tumors, including ANs.Most notably, a large study from Sweden by Hardell and colleagues, and a multi-institutional study involving 16 centers in 13 countries called INTERPHONE, have admirably tried to answer this important question. Overall, the best interpretation of the results of these studies does not demonstrate support for an increased risk of developing an AN in frequent cell phone users. However, the science is very suggestive that the most malignant brain cancer (glioblastoma) and a benign brain tumor of the auditory nerve (acoustic neuroma) increased in cell phone users after 10 years of use, and the effect is more pronounced in children’s brains. But the science is not absolutely positive, and research in this area is continuing.

TheWorld Health Organization (WHO) announced that long-term use of cell phones may be linked to elevated risk of some types of brain issues. The conclusion, which is reportedly still inconclusive, is derived from a landmark international study overseen by the WHO that has lasted for decades. The results, though not entirely conclusive, clearly have concerned theWHO. Dr. Elizabeth Cardis, fromWHO, is quoted as saying “In the absence of definitive results and in the light of a number of studies which, though limited, suggest a possible effect of radio frequency radiation, precautions are important.” There is particular concern regarding use by children, as their thinner skulls are less likely to shield the brain from harmful frequencies.

The Food and Drug Administration says the research “does not allow us to conclude that mobile phones are absolutely safe, or that they are unsafe.” Those who cannot avoid using cell phones may consider the advice offered by the EnvironmentalWorking Group tominimize their exposure to radiation.

 Use a low-level radiation cell phone.  Check out www.ewg.org for the best 10 cell phones that emit low-level radiation.
 Use a headset or speaker.
 Listenmore and talk less. Cell phones emit radiation when you talk or text, but not when you are receiving signals or messages.
 Hold your cell phone away fromyour body.
 Textmore and talk less.
 Stop trying to communicate when the signal is poor. Poor signals mean your cell phone needs to send stronger signals (higher
level radiation) to the tower.
 Don’t allow your children to use or play with your cell phones. Children’s brains absorb twice as much radiation as adults.
 Don’t use the “radiation shield.” Radiation shields such as antenna caps or keypad covers reduce the connection quality and force the machine to emit higher radiation to deliver a stronger signal."
« Last Edit: September 19, 2010, 07:03:37 pm by ppearl214 »
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness", Capt Jack Sparrow - Davy Jones Locker, "Pirates of the Carribbean - At World's End"

leapyrtwins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10826
  • I am a success story!
Re: Newer incidence rate for ANs
« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2010, 07:01:21 pm »
Thanks, m'dear.

I knew the powers that be @ the ANA released something, just didn't remember what.

Guess I'm getting old  ::)
Retrosig 5/31/07 Drs. Battista & Kazan (Hinsdale, Illinois)
Left AN 3.0 cm (1.5 cm @ diagnosis 6 wks prior) SSD. BAHA implant 3/4/08 (Dr. Battista) Divino 6/4/08  BP100 4/2010 BAHA 5 8/2015

I don't actually "make" trouble..just kind of attract it, fine tune it, and apply it in new and exciting ways

ppearl214

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7449
  • ANA Forum Policewoman - PBW Cursed Cruise Director
Re: Newer incidence rate for ANs
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2010, 07:04:02 pm »
Thanks, m'dear.

I knew the powers that be @ the ANA released something, just didn't remember what.

Guess I'm getting old  ::)
yeah, you are and glad to help. :)
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness", Capt Jack Sparrow - Davy Jones Locker, "Pirates of the Carribbean - At World's End"

lori67

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3113
Re: Newer incidence rate for ANs
« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2010, 07:21:35 pm »
Connie,

I appreciate your posting of the statistics and I know many others do too.  I just happen to be one of those people who can't make heads or tails out of that stuff - after 4th grade math, it's all downhill for me!  ;)  But people should still feel comfortable posting things like that for those math geeks out there! 

And as far as the cell phone debate - does the term "beating a dead horse" mean anything to you?  Ugh!!!   ;D

Lori
Right 3cm AN diagnosed 1/2007.  Translab resection 2/20/07 by Dr. David Kaylie and Dr. Karl Hampf at Baptist Hospital in Nashville.  R side deafness, facial nerve paralysis.  Tarsorraphy and tear duct cauterization 5/2007.  BAHA implant 11/8/07. 7-12 nerve jump 9/26/08.