Latest news with #breastCancer
Forbes
14 hours ago
- General
- Forbes
Why The Most Effective Leaders Are Forged, Not Appointed
Business colleagues meeting in modern conference room The most impactful leaders aren't always those with the most polished résumés or the longest tenure in the boardroom. More often, they are those who have endured adversity, adapted under pressure, and emerged with hard-earned wisdom. Their authority doesn't stem from hierarchy—it's rooted in lived experience. And in an era when 82% of organizations admit to placing the wrong individuals in leadership roles (Gallup), that distinction has never been more critical. Leaders who lead from experience offer more than strategy or instruction—they offer perspective. They build trust not through perfection, but through presence. They bring a depth of understanding that resonates far beyond directives, sparking the kind of loyalty, motivation, and resilience that organizations can't fabricate. Vulnerability in leadership isn't weakness—it's strength in its most human form. When leaders have the courage to share their personal setbacks, professional stumbles, or moments of uncertainty, they normalize imperfection and create space for growth. This is the foundation of psychological safety, which research consistently links to innovation, collaboration, and team performance. I recently connected with fellow author Kathie FitzPatrick - a Stage 4 breast cancer survivor and author of Achieving Greater Health and Beauty After Breast Cancer - who stated, 'Authenticity fuels psychological safety, which in turn fuels innovation and performance. It's especially important for women to feel safe sharing vulnerabilities. When team members are empowered to take risks and admit what they don't know, the entire organization becomes more agile.' Janice Omadeke adds in a recent HRB article, 'Over the years, we've learned that leaders who create space for true vulnerability foster environments where people feel welcome to be themselves.' Leadership rooted in lived experience fosters connection, and connection builds trust—the currency of high-performing teams. Vulnerability is ineffective without empathy. True leadership requires the ability to see others—not just their outputs, but their context, emotions, and challenges. Empathetic leaders don't rush to solutions; they sit with complexity, ask better questions, and lead with compassion. Empathy, when combined with experience, becomes a multiplier. Leaders who have faced adversity—whether in business, health, or life—tend to develop a deeper understanding of others' struggles. According to a report from Catalyst, employees with highly empathic senior leaders report significantly higher engagement. This isn't soft leadership—it's smart leadership. Empathy improves retention, resilience, and results. If you're a leader who wants to leverage personal experience to empower others, consider these core practices: 1 - Share with intention. Don't tell stories for sympathy—tell them for clarity. 2 - Listen as much as you lead. Experience is valuable, but it must be balanced with active empathy. Make space for others' journeys, not just your own. 3 - Model continuous growth. Leadership is not a destination. Show that you're still evolving, still learning—this grants others permission to do the same. 4 - Be real, not rehearsed. People don't connect to polish—they connect to presence. At its core, leadership is not about controlling outcomes—it's about influencing people. And few things influence more profoundly than experience worn with humility and shared with purpose. Leaders who have struggled, adapted, and grown are uniquely equipped to guide others through change, complexity, and challenge. Their credibility doesn't come from a title—it comes from truth. And in today's turbulent business landscape, that kind of grounded, experience-driven leadership isn't a nice-to-have. It's a strategic imperative.
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Beloved comedian Denise Scott reveals she was rushed to hospital after drinking HAND SANITISER amid battle with 'aggressive' cancer
Denise Scott has revealed how she accidentally drank hand sanitiser on the set of her ABC sitcom, Mother And Son. The beloved Australian comedian, 70, who was nominated for a Logie Award for her lead role in the show last year, said the mishap saw her rushed to hospital. Appearing on The Project on Monday night, Denise explained how she mistook the substance for water. 'I rock up,first time I've been in a sitcom, I'm the lead, I'm so scared' she began the story. 'And it's a really hot day, and this young runner has driven me to set, and I was so nervous that I pulled the water, I'm like guzzling. Then I think, "What have I just drunk?"' From A-list scandals and red carpet mishaps to exclusive pictures and viral moments, subscribe to the DailyMail's new showbiz newsletter to stay in the loop. 'It wasn't water. It was hand sanitiser! It had liquefied in the Sydney heat.' Denise said the crew rushed to get her medical attention after the unfortunate episode. 'They think, "Right, that's it. Filming's stopped. Get the ambulance for Denise. It's cancer-related." I'm choking' she said. 'Anyway, that stuff is like 95 or 96 percent proof. I was out of my mind the whole day.' Denise recovered from the mishap, and is also in recovery following an intense 17 months of breast cancer treatment amid her battle with an 'aggressive' form of the disease. Denise was diagnosed with cancer near the start of 2023 and revealed the shock news publicly shortly after. She detailed her 'pretty much non-stop' 17 months of chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments to fight the 'particularly aggressive' form of breast cancer. Denise took to Facebook to reveal that she had undergone her last day of chemotherapy after first starting the treatment back in February 2023. 'Yesterday was my last day of chemo. I've been having treatment for breast cancer HER2 positive pretty much non-stop for 17 months,' she shared alongside a picture of herself in hospital. The TV star went on to detail the months-long stints of chemotherapy and other treatments she has undergone over the past year and a half amid her cancer battle. She went on: 'Feb 2023-May 2023 Chemo, June 2023 lumpectomy and removal of lymph nodes from right arm pit, August 2023-Sept 2023 Daily Radiation sessions for 6 weeks, (and) Aug 2023- May 2024 9 more months of Chemo.' Denise confirmed that her latest mammogram was 'clear' as she thanked her fans for their support amid the difficult time. 'For now, at least, the treatment has done its job,' she penned. 'Latest mammogram was clear. I lost all my hair (in) the first round of chemo, then got these thin white, quite frankly disappointing, tufts grow in (the) second round - different sort of chemo. 'So many people to thank and acknowledge. But for now I'll leave it there. Thank you for yr lovely messages.' (sic) The media personality and former star of The Project first spoke about her cancer diagnosis to The Australian Women's Weekly. She told how she was first diagnosed with breast cancer while working on the Mother and Son reboot, but bravely carried on shooting the project. 'I do console myself that at least I've lived a full life that I'm happy with,' Denise told the publication. 'But I don't want to go yet. There are things I want to do.' Denise said she was leaning on her partner John Lane for support, adding: 'The prognosis has continued to be good, and there's a lot of hope.' Denise met John when they performed together as clowns on a theatre production in Albury, New South Wales. The couple have been together for more than 40 years but they never got married, with Denise previously saying it wasn't something either of them focused on. Denise stars in the ABC reboot of the series Mother And Son, which famously had Ruth Cracknell in the role of Maggie Beare. Considered one of the greatest of all home made classics, Mother & Son debuted on the ABC in 1984. The iconic sitcom starred Gary McDonald as a bewildered adult son trying to cope with his ageing mother, played by the late Cracknell. In the re-boot, comedian Matt Okine now plays Arthur, who moves in to look after the recently widowed Maggie (Scott), who may or may not have burnt down the kitchen in the family home. As in the original, the reboot sees Maggie run rings around her well-meaning family. Also featured in the cast of the re-boot are Angela Nica Sullen who plays Arthur's older sister Robbie and Fat Pizza's Jean Kittson. Tiriel Mora from the 90s classic comedy Frontline also stars along with Virginia Gay from Winner and Losers and Catherine Văn-Davies (The Twelve). The original show won over audiences for its funny and poignant depiction of the challenges adult children often face when dealing with an ageing parent who suffers from 'memory loss' (actually, dementia). Maggie (Cracknell) became a fan favourite as she seemed to spend most of her waking hours 'out smarting' everyone, especially Arthur (McDonald), who was left to wonder just how 'out of it' she really might be.
Medscape
7 days ago
- Health
- Medscape
Teamwork in Oncology Spotlighted at ASCO
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Mark A. Lewis, MD: Hello. I'm Dr Mark Lewis, director of Gastrointestinal Oncology at Intermountain Health in Utah. Joining me today is Dr Stephanie Graff, director of the Breast Oncology Program at Brown University Health's Cancer Institute, and co-leader of the Breast Cancer Translational Research Disease Group. Today, we would like to talk to you about the latest updates from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Stephanie, it's a true joy to sit down with you. I always look forward to ASCO. I sometimes explain to my patients that it's like the Super Bowl of oncology, and I don't think that's hyperbolic. It's the largest meeting of the year. One of the true advantages is getting to network with people like you, but also — I don't know about you — I get a real tangible sense of progress, and I often tell my patients, 'Listen, I'm going to go to this meeting. I don't want to over-promise and underdeliver, but I think there's a real chance that I'll bring back something new that might affect your care.' There are the big four tumor types in oncology, breast, lung, [gastro intestinal (GI), and genitourinary]. You practice above the diaphragm, and I practice below the diaphragm. As we might talk about in the Venn diagram, I think we overlap. I'm just curious what's exciting you at this meeting? Stephanie L. Graff, MD: In breast oncology, there's been a large amount of really exciting news. One of the ASCO plenary sessions, which we haven't heard yet, is SERENA-6, which will be looking at camizestrant with circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). That'll be exciting. We're getting updates on overall survival with the INAVO120 regimen. We saw this morning that it improved survival, which is great. We also are going to be seeing data looking at trastuzumab deruxtecan in HER2-positive breast cancer in the first line and then other data looking at targeted therapies for things like PI3 kinase. Our first oral [abstract] PROTAC, Dr Hamilton presented today, also showed improvement in progression-free survival. Many things like that are exciting and certainly starting to change practice. Pembrolizumab and sacituzumab [are] changing practice in first-line metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. There's so much and it's a really great breast oncology ASCO. Lewis: I'm so glad to hear that. There are a couple areas I think that we definitely overlap. I'm curious to get your thoughts on ctDNA. My sense as a GI oncologist is that it is a very prognostic biomarker, but it is not always demonstrably predictive. My real reservation in using it, to be honest with you, is: Number one, I don't think it entirely supplants our traditional clinical pathologic understanding. For instance, as a GI oncologist, if I think someone has high-risk stage III colon cancer and their initial postoperative ctDNA is negative, I'm not entirely going to abandon my approach to their adjuvant therapy. Also thinking about it as a patient, we're sometimes telling these people that they have literal subclinical disease. You can make the argument, 'Well, why wait until cells aggregate to the point that you can see them as an actual tumor on a scan?' On the other hand, I worry sometimes about the psychological impact of ctDNA. As you said, we'll hear about SERENA-6 tomorrow. I think that's a really interesting study in the sense of letting patients be aware of emerging ESR1 mutations that are conferring resistance to aromatase inhibition. I'll be really curious to see the outcome of that study and whether that's a meaningful change for the patient, because I think we sometimes actually underestimate the psychological weight. Graff: It's interesting. In breast oncology, we've benefited from a wealth of patient advocacy, driving a wealth of progress, funding, and advancing science, which has been really beneficial in our field. We actually have done research looking at how the psychological impact affects how patients handle disease. I think that, historically, you can imagine a time in medicine when people thought, 'Oh, those sweet little girls, we shouldn't weigh them down with the worry about cancer.' That has borne out to not be true. When we think about telling people the results of a mammogram that needs additional imaging or biopsy, or that they have dense breast tissue or that their mammogram needs additional follow-up in 6 months, none of those things actually increase or decrease a patient's worry. Lewis: Interesting. Graff: What helps is just open and honest communication. I think what's more important is that we empower physicians and oncologists with the tools to actually understand what these tests mean and how to communicate effectively with patients about them. I think patients are going to be worrying about the fact that they have cancer. Good test or bad test, that patient knows the next test might not be the same. Good test or bad test, their cancer could have a different outcome down the roadway. They're going to worry. I don't have cancer and I worry. I worry about my kids. I worry about my house. I worry about the weather. We all worry. I think that just having the tools to explain what's going on is probably the most powerful thing that we can do. Lewis: That is such a wonderful anecdote to literal and figurative paternalism, and you're absolutely right. We already have these points of apprehension in patient care and diagnostics, and I think ctDNA potentially adds to that, but we can use the same methods of counseling that we've used for all these other tools. That's so well said. I also wanted to tell you — and I really, really mean this — that I view breast medical oncology as aspirational for the rest of solid tumor oncology. When you were mentioning trastuzumab deruxtecan earlier, one of my most vivid memories from ASCO meetings of any year was the plenary session where DESTINY-Breast04 was presented. I remember being part of the standing ovation for that trial, even though I don't treat breast cancer anymore, because I thought, 'Wow, we are really making progress in biomarker-driven care.' The other reason I view you as aspirational is we are not yet at that standard in GI oncology, at least, where it's a foregone conclusion that we would know all the biomarkers that we need to know. One of the interesting conversations I have with patients now is on pathologists as our silent, or at least unseen, partners. I think you would agree that you would almost never treat a patient with metastatic disease without knowing ER, PR, and HER2 status. Meanwhile, over in GI oncology, I'm sometimes having to ask for these things to be done that would be relevant to my patients, say KRAS mutations or BRAF mutations. To me, it seems like it should be as reflexive for me as it is for you as a breast cancer oncologist. What I'm getting at here, too, is this is back to how we have conversations with patients. I think patients need to understand, again, that biomarkers are a huge part of how we personalize their care, even though they might never actually meet their pathologists. Again, I just wanted to tell you, because I don't often get to sit with you, that the way that breast cancer oncologists — and to your own point, patient advocates — have kind of pushed things forward, it's a rising tide that lifts all boats. I often use your field as an example of where we should be. Graff: It's ironic because I have maybe the opposite perspective. As a breast oncologist, I feel like, here we are in 2025 with all these amazing genomic ctDNA and RNA assays, and we're still using ER, PR, and HER2, which is — spoiler alert — literally dumping ink on slides, right? It's immunohistochemistry. Our thoracic oncology colleagues are using true genomic-driven care to look at ROS1 , EGFR , and all these different things to say, based on this profile, this is what you're going to get. We're like, well, we have to wait for that ER to come back. I'm a little bit jealous that some fields have more genomic-driven care than breast does, but you're right. Breast was definitely a pioneer in biomarkers. DESTINY-Breast04 is an interesting example because, if anything, it shows that the biomarker doesn't matter, right? Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a HER2 antibody, and as it turns out, it works great for HER2-positive disease, but it also works great for HER2 not-so-positive disease. DESTINY-Breast06 now includes ultra-low, which is zero with just a little bit of fuzzy in the background. We're seeing that maybe we're not getting our biomarkers right after all. Lewis: So well said. I remember thinking about the effect in ultra-low and thinking, man, how strong is this bystander effect? If the chemo payload is being delivered to barely present HER2 receptors, it must be really potent indeed. I often think that we're actually putting a large amount of credence in what our pathologists tell us. For instance, like you said, immunohistochemistry is very qualitative, sort of semi-quantitative. Again, with things like PD-L1, it's funny how we all have sour grapes to other tumor types. Thinking about continuous variables, we can always debate the appropriate cutoff. Pathologists have actually warned us at this very meeting. I remember Anirban Maitra standing up and saying, 'Listen, you guys need to realize, as pathologists, the number that we give you for PD-L1 expression, for instance, that's our impression on that day, on that slide. You really shouldn't take it to be gospel truth.' Again, I think we're still finding our way with that. Graff: We've seen, in breast oncology, a presentation at this meeting looking at if that's the forefront for AI, right? Is that where artificial intelligence is going to be able to augment our ability, because again, we heard in the opening session that AI should be a tool that is an agent to advance human skills. If AI can help augment the eye of the pathologist, enhance the skills of the microscope, and move HER2 zero to HER2 ultra-low with more accuracy than the naked eye or more robustly in global centers where access to those stains aren't as readily available, then AI is advancing care for everyone equitably around the globe: the same global population that's participating in these trials and bringing them to our patient population. Back to biomarker-driven care, I think it just comes back down to patient communication. All of these tests take time. Even in breast oncology, sometimes my patients have to wait. They have to wait for ESR1 . It's a mechanism of resistance. I don't have it until their disease progresses and I can send that test out. That means that sometimes they have to have some patience while we wait and make sure that they're a candidate for the right therapy at the right time. That requires partnership with a bunch of people on my team. The staff that draw the blood and the mail room staff that ship it out to the right team. I'm so thankful that I have a huge wealth of people that make the cancer center work. Lewis: So well said. I often tell my patients that oncology is a team sport. Graff: Yes. Lewis: I think the last thing I wanted to say is that you and I have talked a little bit about the pace of progress as a wonderful problem to have. I'm curious, [going] off your comment about sort of global equity, how do you feel like that plays out in sort of clinical trial design? Graff: The breast oncology community discussed this today as some data were revealed. An interesting problem that we're starting to have in breast cancer is the rapidity of new agents relative to the rapidity of trial accrual. This means that, if it takes a year to design a trial and get regulatory approval, and then another year to accrue and then another year to read out results, by then there have been 27 new drugs added, right? I think we had 25 regulatory approvals last year in the US, or something like that, in oncology. Whatever the standard-of-care control arm was in the study 3 years ago when that trial was designed is laughable. I'm going to use the example of second-line HR-positive breast cancer. We have two problems. Problem number one is that the standard control arm is fulvestrant. When many of these trials were accruing in 2020 and 2021, that was the standard of care. Now, we have ESR1-targeting agents. We have PI3 kinase-targeting agents. We have data that extending a CDK4/6 inhibitor is efficacious. We have evidence for earlier trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients that maybe aren't so endocrine sensitive. We can always extend everolimus into that space. There's all this other stuff, including oral SERDs. There are so many different directions we can go. I don't even remember what all I've listed [to] at this point. We're getting the next generation of medicine, but they're still being compared to fulvestrant. Lewis: Right. Graff: We're looking at these results, saying, 'Well, great, you beat that drug we used back in the late 1900s.' Lewis: Right. Yes. Graff: Now, I think that another problem is that global angle, which is that not all of those new drugs, although almost all of these trials are global trials, they're accruing these from international countries. Not all of the regulatory agencies have approved them internationally. Not all of the payers have approved them internationally because they meet different benchmarks around the globe. Lewis: Yes. Graff: That standard-of-care arm isn't available as we advance. Again, trial design gets complicated because if we want the control arm to be the US standard of care, and that's different than the German standard of care, the Indian standard of care, the Kenyan standard of care, or the Argentinian standard of care; then we have to make sure that they're connected with that standard of care. We have to make sure that they're comfortable delivering that standard of care and figure out what that really looks like. Lewis: I think where I completely agree with you is you have to walk before you can run. It's really exciting to see the sophisticated assays like ctDNA, but I'm sitting here thinking, based on your comments, I can't even guarantee that I'll have mismatch repair protein status in my patients with colon cancer. Again, we have to take this in a stepwise fashion. You're right that, for all the excitement that we understandably and should feel at meetings like this, we do have to temper our enthusiasm a little bit and be practical in the real world. I have to say, Stephanie, it's just a delight to sit with you. I think you really are a true exemplar of shared decision making. Again, it really, at the end of the day, doesn't come down to the primary site. Yes, you're a breast oncologist. Yes, I'm a GI oncologist. A rising tide lifts all boats, and I think, as we also heard this morning, there's a difference between irrational exuberance and unjustified optimism, and then there's legitimate hope. At least what I feel at these meetings, and I strongly suspect you do too, is legitimate hope for our patients. Graff: I agree. Lewis: With that, we'll close. Again, thank you for joining us. We hope this was a helpful summary of what we've been hearing today at the ASCO 2025 Annual Meeting. Thank you.
Washington Post
13-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Washington Post
People deletes Olivia Munn story after Ms. Rachel comments draw ‘threats'
In a rare move, People magazine deleted a story from its website on Wednesday after it triggered 'violent' threats against its subject, the actress Olivia Munn, and her family. The story was about Munn's distaste for children's television and bore a headline specifically citing the popular YouTuber Ms. Rachel — which apparently triggered some fans. 'There is no excuse for these abhorrent attacks, and we will always prioritize safety above all else,' the publication acknowledged in a statement explaining the decision to remove a story. It's an unusual move for any news outlet to delete, rather than amend or update, a story — even People, which is generally considered a friendly go-to outlet for celebrities to share their stories. When asked for further information about removing the article, a People representative pointed back to its original statement. The post was drawn from the magazine's recent interview with Munn for a cover story, which published online June 4. The 44-year-old actress, who was promoting her new Apple TV+ series, talked about life with her husband, 42-year-old comedian John Mulaney, their children — a three-year-old boy and eight-month-old girl — as well as her 2023 breast cancer diagnosis. People also published several separate exclusive items using material from the Munn interview, including one in which she discussed her fertility treatments, and another post headlined, 'Olivia Munn Doesn't Let Her Kids Watch Ms. Rachel. Here's Why.' In the story, according to sites that repeated quotes from it before it was deleted, Munn shared her irritation with children's TV programming. She specifically cited Ms. Rachel, a major celebrity to young children and their parents. 'I know kids love [Ms. Rachel], but the thing is, if I can't watch it, I'm not going to spend the rest of my life going crazy,' Munn said, and added she was not a fan of 'Blue's Clues' or 'Spider-Man' either. (She did admit a tolerance for 'Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood,' because it helped her son prepare for the arrival of a baby sister.) However, the framing of the People headline drew attention on social media, especially given that Ms. Rachel, whose full name is Rachel Griffin Accurso, has been in the news for speaking out about the plight of children in Gaza — though it's unclear if this topic was even addressed in the People story. All of this was surely heightened by the strong feelings many fans harbor about Mulaney and Munn's relationship, and its timing relative to his divorce from an artist, Anna Marie Tendler, with her own significant social-media following. Various publications and social media accounts started regurgitating Munn's comments, and Accurso herself expressed disappointment when she left a comment on People's Instagram post, now disappeared as well: 'WHO CARES?! I'd rather you cover me advocating for kids in Gaza who are literally starving, largest cohort of child amputees in modern history, thousands & thousands killed — no medical care, no education, no homes… do better!!!' Accurso wrote, according to multiple reports. 'Not against [Munn] at all and don't care that she doesn't want to watch the show — all my love to her and her family — disappointed in the outlets.' Later, she wrote on her own Instagram account that she and Munn had spoken and were on good terms. 'Please be kind to Olivia & her precious family,' Accurso wrote. 'I don't believe in hate, attacks or hurtful comments.' Munn also criticized the coverage. 'To Ms Rachel and your fans, I hear and respect the passion behind your support. I never anticipated the media would single out one small thing I said and distort it like they have,' she wrote in an Instagram story earlier this week. 'Every parent understands the importance of finding meaningful programming that helps us connect with our kids. I don't want something taken out of context to be a moment that steals even a minute of joy for anyone.' Mulaney weighed in Wednesday, calling for a stop to the 'violent and threatening' comments that Munn had been receiving in online comments and direct messages. 'An innocent comment my wife Olivia Munn made about what children's programs we like has somehow — unbelievably — been conflated with not caring about the deaths of children in Gaza,' he posted on Instagram. "The people doing this are so wildly out of line and so unhelpful to any conversation. You took a nothing comment to a dark and dangerous place. This kind of behavior isn't activism.' Accurso has been creating educational children's content on YouTube, where she has more than 15.2 million subscribers, since 2019. With the help of silly and cheerful music, Ms. Rachel teaches children how to spell and use the bathroom, while also offering lessons on emotional support. Outside of her YouTube show, Accurso has been outspoken about Gaza, which led to backlash from right-wing media commentators and StopAntisemitism, a prominent pro-Israel group, which called on the U.S. attorney general to investigate the children's entertainer. (Accurso said earlier this month that she stands against 'all forms of hate.') But, Accurso told WBUR, 'I wouldn't be Ms. Rachel if I didn't deeply care about all kids. And I would risk everything, and I will risk my career over and over to stand up for them.'
BBC News
11-06-2025
- Health
- BBC News
Hull man says having breast cancer makes him feel 'an imposter'
On his most recent visit to a hospital breast clinic, Neil Ferriby noticed the surprise of the female patients who filled the waiting room when he was called is moments like those that have contributed to the 42-year-old feeling "almost an imposter" since he was diagnosed with male breast cancer."The room was noisy and then, as soon as they said 'Neil', you could hear a pin drop. They were all staring at me," he said."I guess they don't expect men of my age to get breast cancer."The former RAF mechanical transport driver from east Hull has an elasticated support strapped around his chest, helping his recovery from surgery to remove 13 lymph nodes and three This story includes a post-surgery picture Mr Ferriby said he had first noticed a lump and a burning sensation around his nipple in January, but dismissed them as harmless."In my head, it was kind of like, it's only females what get breast cancer, or males in their 60s plus," he weeks passed before his family and friends persuaded him to see his GP. He was referred to Castle Hill Hospital in East Yorkshire for a mammogram and March, a biopsy found cancerous cells and, after surgery in April, he started chemotherapy this Ferriby completed a tour of Iraq during his 12 years of RAF service and said the experience had helped him cope with the diagnosis."It's gone back to the military mindset that even if you're injured you still fight, and I'm here to fight, not to let cancer take me," he said. The charity Breast Cancer Now said approximately 400 men were diagnosed with breast cancer each year in the UK, compared with about 55,000 those men, only about 100 are under Goford, the charity's clinical nurse specialist, said all men had breast tissue and should be as aware of changes as women."It's the same message we would put to women - that you need to be aware of what your chest looks and feels like normally," she said. "We'd encourage everybody to touch, to look and to check your chest and to report any changes that you see to your GP."The charity, which offers a helpline and a buddy service to match men with other male breast cancer patients, said being diagnosed with breast cancer could be "very isolating" for men. 'Guinea pig' Mr Ferriby said he had become aware of how unusual his case was when the number of people coming into his appointments increased from a doctor and a nurse to "coachloads" of keen to raise awareness of how breast cancer presents in men, he said he was happy staff and students were able to learn from him."I don't mind being a guinea pig for the NHS," he said. Mr Ferriby said he had found his local breast cancer support charity supportive, despite having reservations initially. He said: "It's called HER Breast Friends, so I emailed 'Do you actually deal with males?'"But the email I got back was so lovely, they said 'Yes, and come to our pamper day'." According to the NHS website, breast cancer symptoms can include:a lump, or swelling in your breast, chest or armpita change in the skin of your breast, such as dimpling or rednessa change in size or shape of one or both breastsnipple discharge (if you are not pregnant or breastfeeding), which may have blood in ita change in the shape or look of your nipple, such as it turning inwards or a rash on itpain in your breast or armpit which does not go away 'Don't leave it four weeks' Mr Ferriby said, after completing his chemotherapy, he would need radiotherapy and would take the drug Tamoxifen for 10 is raising funds for the charity Macmillan, whose nurses are helping him through his cancer Ferriby said he wanted to make men more aware they could contract breast cancer."Everything that you see - posters, TV adverts - it's mainly all being geared towards women," he said. "If there's any men out there, especially my age or younger, and they find something in the chest wall that doesn't feel right, maybe don't leave it four weeks to go to the GP like I did."If you have been affected by the issues raised in this article, you can visit the BBC Action Line for information and supportListen to highlights from Hull and East Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here.
