It’s common faults for breast cancer.

I. Ill-treatment. Many people lacked knowledge of the seriousness of medicine, and often included many random ingredients in the choice of treatment methods and the application of specific treatments. This may not have serious adverse consequences for patients in other diseases, but it is extremely important in the treatment of breast cancer. Such arbitrariness is itself a contempt for medical facts and a challenge to the laws of nature. However, a pattern of disrespect is punished by the law, and it is the patient who loses it. As we already know, the treatment that is now being applied is the crystallization of centuries of human knowledge. They were random, imperfect and even ineffective at the beginning of their lives. After a great deal of rigorous research and practice, repeated phase-out and change, these therapies have matured and the combination of treatments has become more rational, and their application in accordance with scientific facts is an important guarantee of the best chances of survival and the best quality of life. Changing these methods at will not only does not guarantee the same treatment, but it also has the potential to reduce it. Therefore, anything that does not clearly demonstrate whether or not long-term survival opportunities and quality of life can be reduced should not be tried in person, including what is reasonable to boast about in others and what is really valuable in other cancers. If new methods are to be explored, they should not be carried out at will, but should be formally carried out by professionals after formal clearance, so as to ensure the basic interests of the patient and the maximum value of the information. In short, we should do everything possible to adhere to standard diagnostics and treatments, and the development of diagnostics and treatments today, based on speculation, is blindly risky. At the same time, it would be better to stop as soon as possible if it was easy to find someone who knew them at the expense of a standard treatment. ii. By the first-ever and the second-ever. Cancer is different from many other diseases, and if the first treatment is not reasonable, it will not be possible to fully compensate for it. More importantly, maltreatment increases the chances of relapse, and post-recurrence breast cancer treatment is extremely difficult. Therefore, much hope should not be placed on those remedies, the opportunity for initial diagnosis and treatment should be greatly valued, and every effort should be made to achieve the best possible chances of survival and the highest quality of life at the first treatment. 3. One-size-fits-all operations have priority. Surgicalism is a historical process in breast cancer treatment. Indeed, several decades ago people began to wonder whether the operation was as decisive as it had previously been thought. Breast cancer is now regarded as a systemic disease, since once it is immersed in the cancer, it is likely to undergo a full-system transfer, and the main lethal hazard of breast cancer is not a partial invasion but a full-body transfer. The whole-of-the-body disease is treated, and a great deal of medical fact has already brought people into the years of integrated treatment. Although surgery does play an irreplaceable role in the treatment of breast cancer and in a few cases is the only means of treatment, in the vast majority of cases, both from the point of view of survival and from the point of view of quality of life, a reasonably structured combination of treatment is the most advantageous. Therefore, let’s not think that “the operation was done early anyway”. As with cooking or cooking, when and how the operation takes place is determined by the circumstances. IV. Ignorance of surgery. You might think that the larger the operation, the cleaner it is, the better it is for survival, but the greater the loss and suffering. It’s a big misunderstanding. These misunderstandings, however, were also made in the medical profession and, as a result, the larger and greater mistakes were made. It was only after blindly expanding the scope of the surgery did not achieve better therapeutic results that people began to wonder whether the idea had made an error of direction. Since then, people have begun to explore how to trade smaller surgical strikes for the same chances of survival. In fact, the reason why the expansion of surgery does not improve the chances of survival is because of the concept of the whole-of-life disease that we have spoken about, namely, that many patients already have a full-body subclinical transfer stove or a small transfer stove before the operation. These can continue to develop and eventually endanger life after surgery. It is impossible to expand the range of local surgical estrangement in these remote areas. Today, we are using low-traumatization surgical methods, such as breast retention, to treat breast cancer I and II, confirmed by a large number of random and well-designed and long-term follow-up studies, which also include a large number of forward-looking, random clinical comparisons carried out in multi-centre or even multinational combinations. The number of patients participating in such formal studies alone reached approximately 15,000. These methods have therefore been evaluated as the most fully developed treatments in modern medicine. In Europe and the United States, Japan and Hong Kong, the use of breast-retention treatment for stage I and stage II breast cancer has generally reached 30% – 60% or higher and is increasing. Unfortunately, there are too few such treatments in the country. It can be seen that breast-retention treatment in appropriate patients is essentially determined by the characteristics of breast cancer itself, not by the mere pursuit of human beings. It can also be said that this is a fortunate coincidence in the patient’s unfortunate case of breast cancer. It is a desired coincidence. It can be said that the purpose of retaining breast treatment is to make the patient ‘ s life more popular and closer to normal, without sacrificing or improving his/her chances of survival. In other words, if you are well placed to apply breast-retention treatment, the choice of root-based surgery not only entails more sins in the course of the procedure, but also a lot of psychological distress after the treatment, but also severely affects the ability of the patient to adapt to the family and society. And the illusion that you expect to have more chances of survival through root-based surgery is virtually non-existent. Thus, the choice of a therapeutic procedure for these patients is not a question of cost-effectiveness, but of cost-effectiveness. 5. Chemotherapy blindness. Since the full-body transfer of breast cancer is the most lethal, chemotherapy, such as this, is of course central to the treatment of breast cancer, and with the exception of a small number of patients with a very low risk of relapse and a small number of patients with a very poor quality who cannot withstand chemotherapy, there is no reason why the full-body treatment should not be discounted. The study of the value of assisted chemotherapy after breast cancer is very adequate and, in addition to a large number of specific studies, the United States Early Breast Cancer Testers Collaborative Group (EBTCG) summarized in 1988, 1992 and 1998 all forward-looking random comparative studies that had sufficient follow-up time at the time. The summary analysis for 1998 alone covered 69 specific studies, with nearly 30,000 cases, and a significant proportion of the studies were followed up for at least 15 years. The results of these aggregate analyses have the greatest impact on breast cancer treatment options. These studies clearly demonstrate that chemotherapy can reduce the risk of re-emergence of breast cancer by one quarter on average and the risk of death by one seventh. In general, the younger the patient, the greater the benefit of chemotherapy, the less valuable it is for patients over 70 years of age. The value of chemotherapy is highly correlated with the dose intensity, which is currently considered to be an important guarantee of survival, with insufficient doses of chemotherapy and no increase or even decrease in survival opportunities for patients. For example, it has been shown that the CMF programme, which is most commonly used for cyclophosphorous + ammonium + fluorine, is used to provide supplementary chemotherapy, with a six-year no-recurrence rate of 70.6 per cent for pre-menopausal patients when the dose intensity reaches more than 85 per cent of the norm. Since the CMF chemotherapy programme can reduce the risk of relapse on average by about one quarter, it can be estimated that the six-year non-recurrence rate for completely non-chemical patients should be around 63.3 per cent. However, the study found that if the dose intensity falls below 65 per cent of the norm, the non-recurrence rate for these patients is actually only 45.9 per cent. There are many reasons why chemotherapy cannot be carried out in full, but many patients refuse to regulate chemotherapy because they fear it will reduce their body’s immunity from cancer. They thought that after chemo, the patient might die faster. But we should base our judgement on facts, in particular on survival indicators, rather than on speculation. Since chemotherapy has proved to offer more opportunities for survival, any speculation that chemotherapy can reduce survival rates can be ignored. In addition, the doses of chemotherapy are generally calculated on the basis of the patient ‘ s surface area, with average Chinese using about 80 per cent of the European and American population. The resilience of Chinese chemotherapy has proved to be no problem, not only in conventional chemotherapy, but also in large doses for foreigners. So far, in the long-term comparison of the different post-operative chemotherapy programmes, higher-level programmes to increase survival rates have tended to have more toxic side effects. Of course, not all of the toxic side effects are good. Thus, in post-cancer cancer chemotherapy, more opportunities for survival can only be offered at the cost of short-term toxic side effects. In fact, however, the 1998 EBCTG summary analysis found that there were no more deaths due to causes other than breast cancer among chemotherapy patients than those without chemotherapy, suggesting that chemotherapy was generally safe. VI. Endocrinological neglect treatment. The incidence of breast cancer is associated with the stimulation of estrogens. The treatment for estrogen irritation is endocrine treatment. Since many other tumours are not treated with endocrine treatment and the toxic side effects of endocrine treatment are minor, many people do not attach much importance to it, but the value of endocrine treatment is in fact unparalleled. Triphenylamine is the most commonly used drug for breast cancer endocrinology treatment, and historically, due to insufficient knowledge of the drug, the time spent on it at an early stage has been shorter and the time spent following follow-up to treatment has been shorter, thus making the efficacy of triphenylamine neither fully effective nor sufficiently proven. The United States Early Breast Cancer Testers Collaborative Group (EBTCG) also conducted a summary analysis of forward-looking and random cross-reference studies on triphenylamine assistive treatment in 1988, 1992, 1998. The study is large and authoritative. Research indicates that the average time for post-operative application of triphenylamine is increasing over time, while reductions in the incidence of relapse and mortality of triphenylamine are also increasing, and that, indirectly, with the increase in the time spent on triphenylamine, its value of treatment is increasing from less than that of chemotherapy. In the 1998 analysis, many patients had 15 years of follow-up time, and there was a great deal of information on the use of triphenylamines for 1, 2 and 5 years. The summary analysis concluded that, as the time spent on triphenylamine increased, the risk of relapse and the risk of death would gradually increase, a change that was particularly significant for women under 50 years of age, and that the treatment of young patients could never be worse than that of older patients under five years of drug use. By grouping all age groups, the five-year dose of triphenylamine can reduce the risk of relapse by an average of 47 per cent and the risk of death by 26 per cent, while chemotherapy can reduce the risk of relapse by only an average of 24 per cent and the risk of death by 15 per cent. Before the menopause, young patients had previously been considered to have had a poor effect on the use of triphenylamine, but that could have been due to the fact that more than one to two years of previous drug use, and it may be surprising that five years of triphenylamine was the most significant for young women under 40 years of age, reducing the risk of relapse by 54 per cent and death by 52 per cent. The most significant effects of chemotherapy are among tumour estrogen receptors under 50 years of age, reducing the risk of relapse by 40 per cent and the risk of death by 35 per cent. In addition, triphenylamine is valuable in breast cancer prevention, and five years of triphenylamine can reduce the risk of breast cancer by about half. There will also be a significant increase in breast cancer on one side, and the five-year dose of triphenylamine after breast cancer can reduce the risk of side breast cancer by about half. Also of value is the endocrinology treatment of patients with whole-body re-emergence or transfer of breast cancer, even though it has been suggested that the treatment of the whole-body endocrinology of breast cancer should be a priority. Endocrine treatment, including triphenylamine, is therefore a real major force in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer, and we must not forget or ignore the cancer resistance of this dominant position. vii. Exaggerated side effects of triphenylamine. Since triphenylamine is generally used after surgery, chemotherapy, treatment, etc., many patients are terminally ill because of the effects of these treatments, and many patients are near menopause at the age of menopause, there are many cases of menopause syndrome and other symptoms. Unfortunately, in many cases, these discomforts have been worn above triphenylamine. Foreign studies have also shown that in breast cancer prevention trials, both women who take oral triphenylamine and women who take oral placebos have been stopped because of “toxic side effects”. We know that placebos do not contain any drug content and that those “toxic side effects” are clearly unrelated to the drug itself. It is therefore hoped that it will also be understood that some of the deficiencies in the oral administration of triphenylamine are due to causes other than triphenylamine. More often and paradoxically, the risk of membrane cancer is often exaggerated without any reason. In fact, the pros and cons of treatment depend not only on its availability but also on his degree and characteristics. We must be aware that one of the most fundamental things is that the application of triphenylamine after surgery can reduce the risk of relapse by half and the risk of death by one quarter. The risk of death here refers to the total risk of death, including deaths due to any cause, both from breast cancer and from uterine membrane cancer. That is to say, even taking into account the fact that triphenylamine can induce uterine membrane cancer, five years of triphenylamine can avoid a quarter of the chance of death. We can see the overall pros and cons of treatment of triphenylamine from the 1998 summary analysis. Triphenylamine can reduce the chances of relapse by nearly half and thus avoid many deaths directly caused by the recurrence of breast cancer. It’s a huge amount in any cancer treatment. In addition, it can reduce the incidence of side breast cancer by 9/1000 in 10 years. The increase in the number of uterine membrane cancers was 4/1000. It is clear that this value is not only far from the same level of reduction in the risk of re-emergence of breast cancer, but is also more than half lower than the reduction in the incidence of side-to-side breast cancer of triphenylamine. The basic incidence of uterine cancer in our country is much lower than in Western countries, and the absolute number of uterine cancers that are administered with triphenoxin is likely to be significantly lower than in Western countries. As a result of our communication with some of the country ‘ s breast cancer experts, there have been no accurate reports of uterine membrane cancer of triphenylamine in the country to date. It should therefore be said that the use of triphenylamine by Chinese women would be safer. Also, uterine membrane cancer is relatively easy to treat, while re-emergence of breast cancer makes it extremely difficult to achieve good long-term treatment. Thus, an analysis of the two aspects of quantity and the nature of the disease shows that the refusal to apply triphenylamine because of the fear of uterine endometrioma increases not only the likelihood of life but the risk of death. In a situation where there are no other drugs available to replace triphenylamine, it is clear that the rejection of triphenylamine is a result of starvation. 8. Treatment only is not reviewed. Breast cancer treatment has not been the best for all, and almost every breast cancer patient has a certain risk of relapse, and the chance of breast cancer on one side is much greater than the average. The early detection of these stoves has some meaning in extending the life span and ensuring the quality of life, but the magnitude of the implications also varies. For example, the early detection of lateral breast cancer, especially at untouchable stages, and the provision of reasonable treatment, often do not pose an additional threat to life. Early detection of lateral breast cancer is therefore the most valuable work in the follow-up review. Simple local relapses, such as those in the chest wall, often yield good therapeutic effects if reasonable treatment is available at an early stage. Partial re-emergence within the side breast after breast retention can be detected at an early stage in the review, and good chances of survival can often be obtained after root surgery. The early detection of lymphocytes, soft tissues and skeletal skeletal transfer stoves, which tend to be slow, are relatively sensitive to endocrinological treatments with less toxic side effects, and are very useful for extending the patient ‘ s lifespan and improving the quality of life. Information on follow-up and review is also a powerful reference for hospital lessons learned and for improving the level of care, and a truly valuable clinical study is absolutely independent of the evaluation of long-term survival outcomes, which can only be obtained through long-term follow-up and review. The follow-up review is therefore a self-serving act and the existence of a regular follow-up system is a reference for measuring hospital level and credibility. IX. Ignoring subclinical issues. Breast cancer should not only be found in clinical examinations, censuses and follow-up visits, but should be found at a very small and unreachable subclinical stage. The early detection of primary breast cancer, as well as transfer and re-emergence, means more active, more survival opportunities and more quality of life. Also, most of the time, subclinics can be detected by the current means of X-ray and ultrasound. Today, where technology is already well developed, where a significant proportion of breast cancer is unreachable in Europe and the United States, the stereotypes of “no cancer without bulge” remain as well-known as the results of modern warfare. Staying on this concept, like when we turned down a firearm with a spear, will seriously hamper the overall improvement of our breast cancer care and will inevitably affect the chances of survival and quality of life of patients. X. Abuse of health products includes a statistical analysis of the anti-oncological drugs market in four regions of the United States, Japan, Taiwan and mainland China. Oncology treatments in mainland China account for only 4 per cent of the total market for anti-cancer drugs, while in the other three regions they amount to 20 per cent ~ 55 per cent; immunization and support drugs are up to 57 per cent of the market for anti-cancer drugs in the mainland, while in the other three regions they account for only 25 per cent ~ 32 per cent. Thus, the status of endocrine treatment and assistive drugs in mainland China is different from that of the three regions mentioned above. It is often observed in clinical work that after surgery patients often take several hundred dollars of assistive drugs after they have taken tens of dollars of triphenylamine. The powerful anti-cancer effects of triphenylamine, as described above, can assistive drugs improve the survival or quality of life of breast cancer patients? Or are they sure they won’t stop the cancer resistance? Some may have answers, such as a particle-cell concentration irritation factor, which can prevent and treat low white cells, thus allowing chemotherapy to take place on schedule and making treatment safer. But the treatment value of many other drugs, especially health-care products, is not necessarily certain or even has not been carried out at all, although in many cases it is not difficult. The United States Journal of Clinical Oncology is an authoritative, world-renowned professional journal. A study on the cancer resistance of shark cartilage agents was reported in the last issue of 1998. Patients are terminal cancer patients. Regularly regulated treatments are carried out as usual to guarantee their basic treatment effects. On this basis, patients are randomly divided into test and control groups, with shark cartilages and placebos, respectively. Statistics on the difference in the life and quality of life of the two groups of drug users. Oral shark skeletal formulations have proved to be of no value in improving the survival and quality of life of these patients. We do not know why so many health-care products around us have not been studied so far, and without such information it is possible to indicate what cancer applies. Frankly, no similar study has been carried out, not only on the uncertain value of their treatment, but also on whether they are harmful to patients, including the possibility of reducing their chances of survival. Moreover, the adverse effects of other aspects of these things are not necessarily missing, and we have indeed found that some of the so-called health-care products that can counter the side effects of chemotherapy are themselves highly toxic and even worse off than chemotherapy. The difference is that chemotherapy can improve survival opportunities while also having toxic side effects, and these health care products may not have the exact value of treatment and may even have some of the benefits of fighting chemotherapy. We must remember that it is difficult for health-care products that do not sufficiently demonstrate a negative impact on indicators of survival and quality of life. The use of these substances, although not as significant as the withdrawal of triphenylamine from use for fear of uterine membrane cancer, increases the risk of death, is also a risk. Breast cancer