# statistics and misconceptions



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

today on Gloria Stillwells blog, reading through the spay info, it said that bitches spayed after the second heat have a 26% higher rate of mammary cancer. 

That makes you want to spay, doesn't it. 26% that is like 1 in 4, about. 

But earlier today in Dog World Magaizine, it said that mammary tumors occur in 3% of the population, and of those, one third are malignant. Ok, so now we have the cancer rate as 1 in 100. 

So out of that 1 in 100 or 100 in 10,000, how many have been spayed before their second heat and how many spayed after their second heat? 

In light of this information, if they are now saying that bitches' overall longevity increases on average the longer they have their ovaries, should we really be pushing to spay these girls before their first heat? 

Are we spaying to remove the possibility of pregnancy, to eliminate the inconveniece of cycles, or for her health? And are we spaying when we do because this is what they tell us is best, and this is what we have done in the past?

I give Dog World Kudos for publishing this artical about this study, with references and all.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

For what it's worth, all the time I have worked in clinics we have never had a spayed female come in with mammary tumors. This is just my experience. The malignant tumors are nasty though and I believe tend to already have metastasized by the time we find them. I am having my girl spayed hopefully right before her second heat cycle so I can gain the benefit of increasing bone health but not so much increasing her chances of getting mammary cancer (the rate is 8% after the 1st heat cycle). 
If you are interested, here is a discussion they are having on (veterinary) student doctor network that I've been following that is related to your question. 
When to sterilize | Veterinary | Student Doctor Network


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

I'm not reading a 26 percent higher risk does as one in four. I think it means if the risk is normally 1 percent it would now be 1.26 percent. At least that's the way I'm reading what you wrote!

When I spay it's usually for a combination of reasons, most of which you stated.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

the risk is 25-26% after the second heat cycle. So yes it is 1 in 4. I promise, this is what they teach in school 


the other thing I wanted to mention is that the majority of the public (and I'm not implying any specific person) is NOT capable/responsible enough to keep an intact female (or male for that matter). I volunteer at the city pound and it's horrible how many healthy adoptable dogs are euthanized (most are pitbulls). So for most people, when I graduate I will be getting them in to get spayed/neutered as soon as possible.


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

I would like to read that study, and perhaps see it redone. That paper which sites the 25% rate was published in 1969....


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

I didn't realize this, but spayed females are at a greater risk of developing hemangiosarcoma than unspayed females: Epidemiologic, clinical, pathologic, and prognosti... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1988] - PubMed result

http://www.akcchf.org/pdfs/whitepapers/3-23-08DiscoveriesArticle.pdf


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

Just stumbled across this:

*Effects of Ovariohysterectomy on Reactivity in German Shepherd Dogs*

By: H.H Kim ; S.C Yeon ; K.A Houpt ; H.C Lee ; H.H Chang ; H.J Lee 
Format: Article 
Year: 2006 
Published in: The Veterinary Journal , 
Database: Science Direct (Elsevier) 
This study investigated the effects of ovariohysterectomy on reactivity of German Shepherd dogs. Fourteen healthy dogs ranging in age from 5 to 10 months were assigned to an ovariohysterectomy or a sexually intact group. Their behaviours were digitally video recorded 4–5 months after treatment and analysed for treatment effects on reactivity. Responses to the approach of an unfamiliar human leading an unknown dog were assigned the following reactivity scores: severe reactivity, 3; moderate reactivity, 2; defensive or mild reactivity, 1; attentive or no reactivity, 0. Median reactivity scores in response to the approach of an unfamiliar human walking with an unknown dog were calculated for each observation period.Dogs in the ovariohysterectomized group showed more reactivity, and median reactivity scores were higher in the ovariohysterectomy group compared with those of the sexually intact group. Ovariohysterectomy of 5–10 month old German Shepherd bitches specifically, and perhaps bitches of any breed generally, may induce an increase in reactivity. Practitioners may benefit from recognizing that a range of behavioural changes may occur post-ovariohysterectomy.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

I don't buy the 26% thing. Molly was spayed before she had her first heat. She is perfectly healthy. Same with Simba(RIP), she was perfectly healthy, passed away peacefully, and in her favorite spot.=)

So is this and other studies trying to say spaying or neutering your dog is bad?

My friend will not spay her2 females(they are JRT/MinPin Mix) because she thinks it will hurt the dog(well duh no surgery is non painful, any surgery will be somewhat painful), and she says it costs too much. I don't even know if her dogs are vaccinated..... :/ should I ask her?

Well anyways, I will always have my dogs spayed/neutered.

ADD: I asked her. She said no, because of money. Her dogs are still a few months old, i think not even a year yet. She says they don't need it, and said Yeah I know they can get sick or whatever.I really think she doesn't care for them. I really don't think she knows the consequences of not vaccinating her dogs.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

huh? I think you are confused. The increase in mammary tumors is due to NOT SPAYING. So you saying that your spayed dogs are "perfectly healthy" isn't contributing much, not to mention it's typically older dogs that present with these tumors.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

LisaT said:


> Just stumbled across this:
> 
> *Effects of Ovariohysterectomy on Reactivity in German Shepherd Dogs*
> 
> ...



It needs to be pointed out that this study was done in puppies. You can't assume any of this holds true for dogs spayed at more than 10 months. Not to mention my pup is UNSPAYED at this point in time (almost 9 mths) and she has had a lot of issues with being very reactive to people vs. NONE of my spayed dogs I own now or have owned or that my family/friends own have had any issues at all.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

LisaT said:


> I would like to read that study, and perhaps see it redone. That paper which sites the 25% rate was published in 1969....


My experience is that this is about the rate I've seen in coming into the vet clinics where I have worked or volunteered. So I definitely believe it. Just because something is old doesn't make it obsolete, although it's nice to have something newer. There may be something out there newer, I'll take a look after class.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

We have people saying different things. Selzer originally says "26% higher rate" and then is talking about 1 in 4. Some people are saying it's "26% higher" and others are saying it's 26% of females.

I'm assuming it's "26% higher rate".
In which case, if the cancer rate is 1 in 100 in all dogs combined, then you can assume that some of those are unspayed...some are spayed. So in reality (combining both the dog world stats and the Stillwell stats), you're probably talking about 1 in 87 chance if the dog is not spayed before its second heat and 1 in 113 chance if the dog is spayed before its second heat. That's just assuming a "half are spayed" and "half aren't spayed" number. But in reality, I doubt that they are even....so it's more theoretical, but you get the point! RIGHT?!


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

If YOU can take care of your own female, fine. 

However, we don't know how anyone else can take care of their females. We just don't. As we have seen time and time again. And to give people we don't know the advice to wait, to me, is playing with fire. People have gotten so directive with it. And reference information and statistics and studies that may or may not be valid as we also see often. Telling people NOT to do it, not knowing who it is you are telling this to. I can tell you I will be careful. I can also tell you I am secretly married to George Clooney. It's the internet. 

If you're out there cleaning up the messes and want to tell people to wait, fine. 

If you are able to go into a kill shelter and walk up and down those aisles and still think it's okay to tell people to wait, fine. Not just once. Then pick the one dog you are able to save or help each time. If you can. 

Put your money where your mouth is. Because your dog may live 3 months longer than my pediatric (make sure you know the difference between pediatric, before first heat, etc. too) speutered dog. But those dogs -millions of them- are most definitely dying. They wouldn't die if they weren't here, and they are here because their moms weren't spayed. That is the root cause. You can't argue that. Why their people let their moms get pregnant is a whole nother topic, but I really don't give a fig. They are just as dead. 

I for one will take my "chances" and hope that the dogs I have here have good genetics because in terms of behavior -including reactivity- and health, that is about 80% of what impacts them. 

I'll do my best on the other 20%.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> We have people saying different things. Selzer originally says "26% higher rate" and then is talking about 1 in 4. Some people are saying it's "26% higher" and others are saying it's 26% of females.
> 
> I'm assuming it's "26% higher rate".
> In which case, if the cancer rate is 1 in 100 in all dogs combined, then you can assume that some of those are unspayed...some are spayed. So in reality (combining both the dog world stats and the Stillwell stats), you're probably talking about 1 in 87 chance if the dog is not spayed before its second heat and 1 in 113 chance if the dog is spayed before its second heat. That's just assuming a "half are spayed" and "half aren't spayed" number. But in reality, I doubt that they are even....so it's more theoretical, but you get the point! RIGHT?!


the rate is 26% overall.......not 26% higher than if spay after first heat cycle. does that make sense? So it's a 1 in 4 chance that your female will develop mammary tumors if you wait to spay until after the second heat cycle OVERALL. I PROMISE you these are the statistics, I am in vet school as we speak and this is what is taught. It's not that 1 in 100 GET cancer, that's the malignancy rate I believe. You can have benign tumors obviously--but that is still cancer.

also keep in mind that the rate goes up the longer you wait to spay.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Ok, so why the different in what Dog World is reporting out (Selzer claims with references) verses what you say the actual rate is? To be honest, 1 in 4 seems QUITE high as an overall rate? Even malignant vs. benign. And I'm pro spay, so anything to fight for the cause! But that doesn't seem right to me. The study is really from 1969??? Or is there a more recent one?

If so, can you cite it? I'd like to read it.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> If YOU can take care of your own female, fine.
> 
> However, we don't know how anyone else can take care of their females. We just don't. As we have seen time and time again. And to give people we don't know the advice to wait, to me, is playing with fire.
> 
> ...



This is EXACTLY how I feel about it......like I mentioned before, the majority of the population is not responsible enough to own in intact dog of either gender, so I will be advising all of my future clients to s/n around 6 mths of age (this is the recommended age right now). 
I live in GA right now and the south is notorious for euthanizing the majority of shelter dogs.....I volunteer with the city pound and it breaks my heart to see the dogs that I have spent time with, got to know their personalities, etc. be put to sleep.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> Ok, so why the different in what Dog World is reporting out (Selzer claims with references) verses what you say the actual rate is? To be honest, 1 in 4 seems QUITE high as an overall rate? Even malignant vs. benign. And I'm pro spay, so anything to fight for the cause! But that doesn't seem right to me. The study is really from 1969??? Or is there a more recent one?
> 
> If so, can you cite it? I'd like to read it.


you're right........it IS high! I will find you a study after my class is over (in about 50 min).


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

*I very much agree with spaying and neutering.*

But my dog is *not *neutered, *yet*

I want to wait until he is 2 to neuter him.

I want him to be physically mature when I get him neutered. 

He does not roam about, he does not leave my side, he is very well behaved. Also, all of the dogs around my house are males (odd) so I doubt he will contribute to an oops litter. BUT he is *never* let outside by himself, I am always out there with him.

Like I said he will be neutered within the next year.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

*Introduction*​ Mammary tumors are the second most common group of neoplasms in dogs, following skin tumors (Fig. 1).6 They are the most common tumors in female dogs, comprising 52% of all neoplasms.3 Of the mammary gland tumors diagnosed in female dogs, 41 to 53% are diagnosed as malignant.7

*
Predisposition*​ The median age for diagnosis of mammary tumors in dogs is 10 years; neoplasms rarely occur in dogs < 4 years of age.7 At 6 years of age, the risk of developing a mammary tumor appears to increase markedly.6 It also appears that after 14 years of age, the incidence of benign mammary tumors levels off while the incidence of malignant cancer continues to increase.3
The development of mammary gland neoplasms appears to be hormone-dependent because the risk of developing a mammary tumor increases as the number of estrous (heat) cycles increases. The risk of developing mammary gland tumors is 0.05% if the dog is spayed prior to the first estrous cycle. The incidence of neoplasia increases to 8% if the dog is spayed prior the second estrous cycle and to 26% if spayed after the second estrous cycle. An increased incidence of tumor development also has been observed in dogs that received injectable progestins for the prevention of estrus.7
Normal mammary tissue and a majority of benign tumors express both estrogen and progesterone receptors. Less than 50% of mammary carcinomas express either of these receptors. This observation suggests that there is a loss of hormone dependency during transition to malignancy.
Breed predisposition in the development of mammary neoplasms has been reported but varies in different studies.5 Several of the spaniel breeds, poodles, and dachshunds have been reported to have an increased incidence of mammary neoplasia. Mammary gland tumors also have been observed in male dogs, but the incidence is 1% or less.7 Affected male dogs usually have a hormonal imbalance such as an estrogen-secreting Sertoli cell tumor of the testis.6
*Clinical Signs*​ Mammary tumors can occur as single or multiple nodules within a mammary gland or chain. These nodules are present in > 50% of dogs with mammary neoplasms. The majority of mammary gland tumors occur in glands 4 and 5 (60-70%), possibly due to the fact that the two most caudal pairs of glands contain the most mammary tissue.6,7
Mammary tumors can metastasize to regional lymph nodes, such as the inguinal lymph nodes (Fig. 2). This can lead to afferent lymphatic blockage causing edema of the limbs (usually the rear limbs). Metastases can continue to the pudendal and the internal iliac lymph nodes causing pressure and stenosis of the colon.7 In some instances, retrograde growth of mammary gland carcinomas has extended as far as the stifle joint, obstructing lymph flow.3

Mammary carcinomas may exhibit rapid growth, doubling in size within a few weeks. However, the size and appearance of these neoplasms can vary greatly.6 Inflammatory carcinomas usually have diffuse involvement of multiple mammary glands. Edema, erythema, and firmness may be present and affected mammary glands may feel warm to the touch. Dogs with inflammatory carcinoma are more likely to have generalized weakness with anorexia and weight loss.1 Inflammatory carcinoma is often misdiagnosed as acute mastitis.7
*Normal Mammary Gland*​ Canine mammary glands are located in the subcutaneous fat layer of the ventral body wall. Mammary glands actually constitute five pairs of modified sweat glands that run in bilaterally symmetrical rows from the cranial thorax to inguinal region. They are composed of secretory acini and a series of excretory ducts. During lactation, the glands undergo hypertrophy, produce colostrum, and eventually produce milk. Normal secretions from mammary glands consist of a large amount of protein and lipid droplets. This secretory product is usually of low cellularity, containing a few foam cells admixed with fewer lymphocytes and neutrophils. Foam cells are large, vacuolated epithelial cells with a round to oval, eccentrically placed nucleus. These cells resemble actived macrophages. A normal aspirate of mammary tissue frequently is acellular or consists only of blood. If mammary tissue is present, the secretory cells have a uniform size, a dark nucleus, and a moderate amount of basophilic cytoplasm (Fig. 3). These cells may be arranged in an acinar pattern. Ductal epithelial cells are arranged in sheets, myoepithelial cells are spindle shaped, and adipocytes are balloon-like in appearance. Lipid droplets also may be present in a normal fine-needle aspirate of mammary tissue.5 

*Diagnosis of Mammary Gland Tumors*​ Mammary gland tumors are difficult to diagnose by routine cytology. Furthermore, it can be very difficult to determine the malignant potential of mammary neoplasms cytologically, and histological evidence of malignancy does not always imply an aggressive clinical course of disease.5 Mammary hyperplasia, dysplasia, adenomas (benign neoplasms), and well differentiated carcinomas (malignant neoplasms) can have a variable morphologic appearances (Fig. 4). Cytologic differentiation of these lesions may be difficult to impossible, leading to false positive and negative diagnoses of malignancy.9 

In one study, approximately 50% of all the mammary tumors examined had an inconclusive cytological diagnosis. Also, approximately 50% of the benign tumors and 25% of the malignant tumors were given a concordant cytological diagnosis. More specifically, 8 of 17 mammary carcinomas were given a concordant cytological diagnosis, and two adenomas were misdiagnosed cytologically as carcinomas (Fig. 5).2

In another study, 147 skin neoplasms were evaluated cytologically using fine-needle aspiration. Of these neoplasms, 105 (74%) had the same cytological and histological diagnoses. However, mammary carcinomas were identified correctly in only 8 of 19 aspirates (42%). Two massed that were diagnosed cytologically as malignant neoplasms actually were benign.4
Cytologic material may be collected from a mammary gland for microscopic evaluation by expressing material directly from the gland or by fine-needle aspiration using a 22 gauge needle. If a fine-needle aspiration is performed, several aspirates should be obtained from the same tumor. Furthermore, aspirates should be obtained from all tumors because more than one type of tumor may be found and considerable tissue heterogeneity may occur within a given tumor. Cytologic aspirates should be taken from the periphery of the tumor because necrotic tissue may be found in the center of the mass. Aspirated material should be smeared on a slide and allowed to air dry before staining. A tissue imprint or direct tissue smear also may be obtained, but these types of preparations often reflect surface inflammation, lack cellularity, and give no indication of tissue architecture.7
*Cytologic Criteria of Malignancy*​ In a study performed to cytologically differentiate benign from malignant tumors, ten criteria for malignancy were determined. Anisokaryosis (variation in nuclear size), or lack thereof in benign tumors, was found to be a significant criterion of malignancy. In benign conditions, 83 to 86% of the specimens lacked anisokaryosis. Tumor giant cells rarely were found in benign tumors. Although not commonly seen, nuclear or cytoplasmic membrane distortions were significant when observed. In addition, a high nuclear to cytoplasmic (N:C) ratio was a significant criterion for malignancy for one of the cytologists in the study, but a poor indicator for the other cytologist. Irregular chromatin shape and size were used to help differentiate benign from malignant lesions. Nucleolar appearance was a helpful criterion in predicting malignancy, especially if macronucleoli were observed (Fig. 6). Variations in the number and shape of nucleoli also were a useful criteria of malignancy. Finally, parachromatin clearing was moderately significant cytologic criterion of malignancy (Table 1). 

*Table 1.* Cytologic criteria of malignancy in mammary neoplasms.​ Anisocytosis (variable nuclear size) Nuclear giant forms Nuclear or cytoplasmic membrane distortions High nuclear to cytoplasmic (N:C) ratio Irregular chromatin shape Variable chromatin size Presence of macronucleoli Variation in nucleolar number Variation in nucleolar shape Parachromtin clearing Poor indicators of malignancy included poor intercellular cohesion, abnormal nuclear shapes, nuclear molding, abnormal multinucleated cells, and degree of cellularity. Abnormal mitotic figures rarely were seen but were thought to be of significance when noted. Using these criteria to evaluate the mammary malignancy does not predict cancer-associated mortality.2 
 Note: All cytologic diagnoses of mammary neoplasia should be considered tentative until confirmed by surgical biopsy and histopathology. *Cytology of Malignant Mammary Gland Tumors*​ * Adenocarcinoma -* Cytologically, cells from adenocarcinomas may exfoliate in sheets or clusters. Individual epithelial cells contain a round to oval, eccentrically-placed nucleus and a moderate amount of basophilic cytoplasm. The cytoplasm may contain amorphous basophilic secretory product and/or vacuoles. Acinar arrangements of epithelial cells also may be observed. 
* Anaplastic carcinoma - *These neoplasms yield very large, extremely pleomorphic epithelial cells that occur as single cells or as small clusters of cells. Unusual nuclear and nucleolar shapes may be seen. Multinucleated tumor cells and abnormal mitotic figures also may be observed. 
* Inflammatory carcinoma - *Cytologically, specimens from inflammatory carcinoma have focal clusters of cells, occasionally accompanied by stromal collagen. These neoplasms are locally invasive with a very aggressive clinical course. Microscopically, cytologic specimens from these neoplasms contain large, pleomorphic, epithelial cells; many nondegenerate neutrophils; and macrophages.
* Squamous cell carcinoma -* Squamous cell carcinoma of the mammary gland has a similar appearance to similar neoplasms that arise in the skin and other sites of the body. The nuclei of individual neoplastic cells range from small and pyknotic to large and round. Nucleoli are prominent and may be large and round to angular. The nuclear to cytoplasmic (N:C) ratio is variable. Binucleated and multinucleated tumor cells may be observed occasionally. The cytoplasm appears moderate to deep blue and has a smooth texture with occasional vacuoles. These changes are associated with keritinization. 
*Malignant Mixed Mammary Tumor* - Epithelial cells and individual spindleoid cells of mesenchymal origin can be observed in cytologic preparations. One of these cell populations usually will display nuclear and/or cellular criteria of malignancy. Occasionally, pink chondroid or osteoid matric may be observed. 
*Carcinosarcoma* - Epithelial and mesenchymal populations of cells with criteria of malignancy are found in cytologic preparations. 
* Sarcoma - *Sarcomas are malignant neoplasms of mesenchymal cell origin. These neoplasms exfoliate poorly, yielding samples of low cellularity. In general, the cells are spindle to irregularly shaped, and are scattered individually or in small clumps. The cytoplasm is moderately to intensely basophilic with attenuated to indistinct cellular borders. Mammary sarcomas are rarely diagnosed cytologically in the dog.7 
*Treatment and Prognosis*​ Note: Treatment of animals should only be performed by a licensed veterinarian. Veterinarians should consult the current literature and current pharmacological formularies before initiating any treatment protocol. The initial workup of all dogs with mammary neoplasms should include a complete history including age, neuter status including age of neuter, date of last estrus or pregnancy, and any hormone treatment received. A thorough physical examination should be done. 
Laboratory testing should include a complete blood cell count and serum biochemical profile. A coagulation profile should be performed in dogs suspected of having inflammatory carcinoma or that have a high risk of metastasis because of the associated risk of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). 
Thoracic radiographs, including both lateral views, should be performed to check for signs of metastasis (Fig. 7). Metastasis can occur to local lymph nodes, so these nodes should be palpated and/or aspirated, if possible.7 Mammary glands 1, 2 and 3 drain to the axillary lymph nodes, while glands 4 and 5 drain to the inguinal lymph nodes. Owners of dogs that were spayed at > 3 years of age can assist in detecting mammary gland neoplasms by palpating the dog’s mammary gland chains once a month. However, most neoplasms must be at least 1cm in diameter to be palpable.3

The first choice of treatment for mammary gland neoplasia is surgical excision. The goal of surgery is to remove the entire neoplasm by the simplest procedure available. There is no difference in recurrence rate or survival time when a simple versus a radical mastectomy is performed. Also, it does not appear to be of benefit to spay the dog at the time of the mastectomy surgery. An effective chemotherapeutic protocol has not been reported. There is no reliable information on the value of radiation treatment, although it may be useful in dogs that have tumors that are too extensive for surgery.7
In one study of 33 dogs with mammary neoplasia, 5 dogs either died or were euthanized because of their disease, presumably within the first year of observation. One year after surgery, 19 dogs were still alive, 5 had been euthanized or died of causes unrelated to mammary cancer, and 4 dogs were lost to follow-up.2 This indicated that the overall death rate in a group of dogs with diagnosed mammary neoplasia was 15.2%.
*References*​ 1. Alenza P: Inflammatory mammary carcinoma in dogs. J Am Vet Assoc 219:1110-1114, 2001.
2. Allen SW, Prasse KW, Mahaffey EA: Cytologic differentiation of benign from malignant canine mammary tumors. Vet Pathol 23:649-655, 1986.
3. Brody RS, Goldschmidt MH, Roszel JR: Canine mammary gland neoplasia. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 19:61-90, 1985. 
4. Griffiths GL, Lumsden JH, Valli VEO: Fine needle aspiration cytology and histologic correlation in canine tumors. Vet Clin Pathol 13:13-17, 1984.
5.Henson KL: Reproductive System. _In:_ Raskin RE, Meyer DJ (eds): Atlas of Canine and Feline Cytology. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Co, 2001, pp. 277-288.
6.Moulton JE: Tumors in Domestic Animals, 3rd Edition. Berkley, University of California Press, 1999, pp. 518-54.3
7. Rutteman GR, Withrow SJ, MacEwen EG: Tumors of the Mammary Gland. _In:_ Winthrow SJ, MacEwen EG (eds): Small Animal Clinical Oncology, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Co, 2000, pp. 450-467.
8. Shull RM, Madduz JM: Subcutaneous glandular tissue: Mammary, salivary, thyroid and parathyroid. _In: _Cowell RL, Tyler RD, Munkoth JH (eds): Diagnostic Cytology and Hemotology of the Dog and Cat. St. Louis, Mosby, 1999, pp. 90-92.
9. Tvedten H, Cowell R: Cytology of neoplasia and inflammatory masses. _In:_ Williard M, Tvedten H, Turnwald G (eds): Small Animal Clinical Diagnosis by Laboratory Methods. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Co, 1999, p. 328. 
*Acknowledgement*​ Image of Raven at the top of the paper is courtesy of owner Allison McCarthy.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

It appears from this that there was a study done as recently as 2000.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Thank you very much. Can't wait to look through all the refernces you provided. Very interesting information.

It does look like Dog World might not have been too far off when saying that about 1% of the TOTAL bitch population ends up with tumors considering the rate for femals spayed before their first heat is only .05%.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

you're welcome......haha I kidn of got bored in class 

here is the website I got it from in case you wanted to see it
Canine Mammary Carcinoma

from my own school even! :wub:


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

ugavet2012 said:


> the risk is 25-26% after the second heat cycle. So yes it is 1 in 4. I promise, this is what they teach in school
> 
> 
> the other thing I wanted to mention is that the majority of the public (and I'm not implying any specific person) is NOT capable/responsible enough to keep an intact female (or male for that matter). I volunteer at the city pound and it's horrible how many healthy adoptable dogs are euthanized (most are pitbulls). So for most people, when I graduate I will be getting them in to get spayed/neutered as soon as possible.


IMHO a vet's first responsibility should be to the patient's animal - do what's in his or her best interest, not what's politically correct or what the vet perceives to be in the best interest of the community. If a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine wants to spay/neuter for political reasons then they should turn in their stethoscopes and run for office. 

If a vet presents the patient with all the current information available - both good and bad - and lets the owner decide what's in his dog's best interest, that's fine with me. But, to be honest, I have never had a vet give me the true low down on spay/neuter - warts and all - it's all healthy, good for the dog, nothing bad can happen now or in the future.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

People have to be careful when reading percentages in statistics.

The research is not saying they have a "26% chance of mammary cancer". What it is saying is that the *increased risk* is 26%. That is a HUGE difference.

Just pulling out numbers that make it easy to illustrate:
If the normal chance is 1%, and heat cycles increase that by 26%, that means that the chance for an unspayed bitch is 1.26%. A 26% increase over the norm, not a jump to 26%. Big, big difference (though one many people pushing early spays don't understand, or don't want to).


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Just wanting to clarify my point (I had just been moving dogs who were dead from the rescue urgent section to the follow up section so was a little upset like every day). Just like on the litter thread, the main point of that was who are you getting your advice from. 

On this one, it is some of that (some of these studies are not...great) and moreso who are you giving your advice to?

People can present both sides, but it comes down to the person getting it and how they deal with their dogs on a minute by minute basis. Since we can't accurately judge that, we should be very careful as to who we are influencing. 

Because I could not handle knowing my advice resulted in something awful for generations of dogs, I err on the side of caution and indicate that.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Chris Wild said:


> People have to be careful when reading percentages in statistics.
> 
> The research is not saying they have a "26% chance of mammary cancer". What it is saying is that the *increased risk* is 26%. That is a HUGE difference.
> 
> ...


No that is not what we are taught. I can see what you are saying but we are taught that if you don't spay by the 2nd heat cycle, your dog's chances of developing a mammary tumor is 1 in 4. If it was really only 1.26%, that would be no big deal. If you would like to debate my vet professors (and tell them they are wrong) who have years of experience in research and clinics then feel free, but I would not want that job. 

I read the word "increased" as to mean the risk JUMPS from .05% to 26% anyway.....

Also I have seen myself a number of older unspayed female dogs present with mammary tumors--a number much greater than anything around 1%. 



arycrest said:


> IMHO a vet's first responsibility should be to the patient's animal - do what's in his or her best interest, not what's politically correct or what the vet perceives to be in the best interest of the community. If a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine wants to spay/neuter for political reasons then they should turn in their stethoscopes and run for office.
> 
> If a vet presents the patient with all the current information available - both good and bad - and lets the owner decide what's in his dog's best interest, that's fine with me. But, to be honest, I have never had a vet give me the true low down on spay/neuter - warts and all - it's all healthy, good for the dog, nothing bad can happen now or in the future.


I never said I wouldn't push s/n at 6 mths ONLY due to the responsibility, that is just one reason. I don't think it's for a "political" reason either.......I have seen with my own eyes dogs that I have gotten to known being euth'd due to overpopulation. It has NOTHING to do with politics. It has to due with me doing what I can to help decrease the numbers of adoptable animals being PTS. As you have already kind of mentioned, my opinion on this is normal, and I certainly don't see any of the vets I have worked for hanging up their stethoscopes and running for office. 

The benefits to spaying are great, the health benefits to neutering......there's not really a difference HOWEVER neutering a dog CAN alter their behavior and get rid of undesirable behaviors that may also in turn cause an owner to relinquish a dog. So the benefit hugely outweighs the cost to me no matter which way you slice the pie.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Here is straight from the Merck Vet Manual: 

Ovariectomy before the first estrus reduces the risk of mammary neoplasia to 0.5% of the risk in intact bitches; ovariectomy after 1 estrus reduces the risk to 8% of that in intact bitches. 


Does phrasing it that way make more sense?


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

ugavet2012 said:


> Here is straight from the Merck Vet Manual:
> 
> Ovariectomy before the first estrus reduces the risk of mammary neoplasia to 0.5% of the risk in intact bitches; ovariectomy after 1 estrus reduces the risk to 8% of that in intact bitches.
> 
> ...


That makes sense, but I don't think it is saying what you think it is saying. 

The wording is VERY important. 

It is not saying the risk is 0.5% and 8%.

It is saying the risk is 0.5% and 8% of that of intact bitches. Big difference.

So what is the risk for intact bitches? 
If it is 100%, then yes 0.5% of 100% = 0.5% and 8% of 100% = 8%. 

But the rate for intact bitches is not 100%.
So what is the denominator here? What is the rate for intact bitches?


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

No you are right, I don't think it's phrased correctly there either as I don't believe the rate is 100% for those left intact their whole lives. I was just looking for something where it is phrased differently. Maybe I will try again. Even if that phrasing is off, that is still more than the 1.26% number you are coming up with. 


But again, if you would like to debate any of my professors (most of whom are vets as well with specialized training.....or any other vet school's professors), I can point you in the right direction. The 1 in 4 statistics are pretty common knowledge. I understand that is sobering info for breeders but that doesn't make it any less of a reality.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

*Try this one *

Incidence
In a recent British study mammary neoplasia was the third most commonly reported malignancy in dogs. (Dobson) The highest relative risk for mammary tumors was found in Boxers, Cocker spaniels, English Springer Spaniels and Dachshunds. (Moe) Earlier studies have reported CMT as the second most common neoplasm of dogs in both sexes. (Moulton) Dogs spayed before the first estrus, between first and second estrus and after second estrus have occurrences of 0.05%, 8.0% and 26% respectively. The same study also showed that the intact female dogs over two years of age have a seven fold increase in risk of developing mammary gland tumors compared to females neutered prior to six months of age. (Schneider) However a recent study reported no association between age at diagnosis, obesity or hormone status and mammary tumors. (Philibert)


I can post more from this if needed but this is written by a board certified vet internal medicine specialist.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

ugavet2012 said:


> huh? I think you are confused. The increase in mammary tumors is due to NOT SPAYING. So you saying that your spayed dogs are "perfectly healthy" isn't contributing much, not to mention it's typically older dogs that present with these tumors.


are u talking to me? My dogs were spayed. I am not confused.They are and were spayed, and are perfectly healthy. People claim their are other health factors that come with spaying a dog. So saying my dogs are spayed and perfectly healthy proves that most of these sicknesses and and stuff that come with spaying, is kind of rubbish.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

ugavet2012 said:


> No you are right, I don't think it's phrased correctly there either as I don't believe the rate is 100% for those left intact their whole lives. I was just looking for something where it is phrased differently. Maybe I will try again. Even if that phrasing is off, that is still more than the 1.26% number you are coming up with.


If you read my post, you will see that I clearly stated I was pulling the number 1 out of the air as an example because it made for easy math to illustrate my point. 

No where did I say that the risk is 1.26%. I said that *if* the risk in intact bitches is 1%, a number I pulled out of the air for easy illustration, then a 26% increase is NOT jumping to 26%, it is in fact going from 1% to 1.26%. This is why the wording is very important.





ugavet2012 said:


> But again, if you would like to debate any of my professors (most of whom are vets as well with specialized training.....or any other vet school's professors), I can point you in the right direction. The 1 in 4 statistics are pretty common knowledge. I understand that is sobering info for breeders but that doesn't make it any less of a reality.


I went to vet school. (Switched majors part way through and didn't finish to become a vet.) Many of my college friends did complete vet school, and of course I know many practicing vets very, very well. I am pretty aware of what professors teach and the backgrounds of most of them. I'm also very aware of how little mathematics and statistics are required (and those during pre-vet and easily forgotten). And this sort of misinterpretation of statistical information and confusing 26% of something to = 26% is very, very common in even the most educated professionals who are not dealing with numbers every day. The risk is not 26%. It is an increased risk of 26% of the risk of intact bitches.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> are u talking to me? My dogs were spayed. I am not confused.They are and were spayed, and are perfectly healthy. People claim their are other health factors that come with spaying a dog. So saying my dogs are spayed and perfectly healthy proves that most of these sicknesses and and stuff that come with spaying, is kind of rubbish.


 Oh, I'm sorry. I actually thought you were trying to point out that your dogs do not/did not have mammary neoplasia B/C you spayed them...........


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

I think I go with Chris. she obviously knows what she is talking about.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Chris Wild said:


> People have to be careful when reading percentages in statistics.
> 
> The research is not saying they have a "26% chance of mammary cancer". What it is saying is that the *increased risk* is 26%. That is a HUGE difference.


I wholeheartedly agree that politics should never be used to skew science. While I think spay/neuter is the right way to go for pet overpopulation reasons, that doesn't change what the science says or doesn't say and that's as it should be.

That said - what the science _does_ say is that *the lifetime risk of mammary tumors in an intact or later spayed female dog is about 1 in 4*. That's _not_ percentage of a percentage, or increase over the norm and if Dog World said that it was, they got it wrong. 

It's incredibly important for people to go to the science themselves when making these kinds of potentially life and death decisions for their pets rather than relying on someone elses interpretation which may well be incorrect. 

The data indicate that lifetime risk of mammary tumors for females not spayed or spayed after several heat cycles is around 25%. I just saw a mention of a study that put it as high as 40%. Now, only about half of these mammary tumors are malignant, but that's still an awful lot of dogs.

There have been many more recent studies that have examined incidence of mammary tumors in dogs, but they tend to look at complicating factors like diet, type of tumor, success rate of various types of treatments etc. The reason for this is that is that the connection between remaining intact and mammary cancer in dogs is something that is KNOWN. Anyone who works in veterinary medicine or deals with a large number of dogs knows that unspayed females get mammary tumors and early spayed females never do. What agency would ever agree to fund more research into establishing what has been known for years? It's like saying "well, the research that showed the earth was round was done back with Magellan. That was a long time ago - so how do we know the earth is really round? Why haven't there been any more recent studies?"

There just isn't any question about it. Dogs that are spayed before their first heat cycle have a mammary tumor rate near zero. The risk goes up each heat cycle until around 2 years of age at which point spayed dogs' risk doesn't appear to be appreciably different from intact dogs (although spaying still has other health benefits like elimination of things like pyometra). There's still debate about whether spaying after diagnosis of mammary cancer helps in treatment or not. One study said it didn't, others have said it may. 

This is in marked contrast to the bone cancer statistics which are considerably more iffy. Mainly because, unlike mammary tumors, both altered and intact dogs can and do get osteosarcoma. The question is whether or not the risk is decreased any by waiting to spay. And that's still something of a question. The paper that is most often quoted by people who think that waiting is better is the study done on Rotties. There are a couple issues there but the biggest misconception I see is that by waiting until a dog is 2 years old or so, they're somehow getting the best of both worlds in terms of cancer reduction risk. That is NOT what the science shows. The Rottie study says something about "dogs altered after a year had x reduction in risk" but if you read the whole thing you see that they're not saying that waiting until a dog is a year old is protective, they're saying that the longer you wait, the lower the risk in the group of Rotties they studied. So there's nothing magical about the one year mark. 

Conversely, when you wait a year or two you are absolutely sacrificing your best chance to prevent mammary cancer. In that case, there IS something very specific about the timing. 

Now, I get there are other reasons people decide to wait - many feel like early S/N is unnatural and that the hormones may be important for things besides reproduction. This is when you get into opinion and subjectivity and people need to do the research and make the choice that's right for them. Like Jean, my experience has shown me that oops litters happen all the time, even to people who say they never will, and my rescue perspective is that S/N saves lives. But that's totally aside from the issues with cancer and cancer prevention. 

What disturbs me about the threads on this board is twofold - one, people mis-state the science and base their decisions on wrong information, and two, as Jean said - we need to be careful about what we're recommending. I'm not saying for a minute that anyone should falsify data to get people to S/N and it bothers me when I see that done by groups like HSUS. For example, I don't think there's particularly good evidence that neutering confers the same kinds of health benefits that spaying does and I think it's disingenuous to say otherwise. But that cuts both ways - it's also incorrect to say that leaving animals intact is "healthier" when that's not what the science says either. 

I guess my bottom line and what I wish would get said to the gazillions of newbies who post on this board looking for information is something to the effect of:

"it's a complicated issues with health pros and cons on both sides and to different degrees depending on what studies you look at. It's important to do the research and make an informed decision. But given that there are clear health benefits to spaying and that so many people are not equipped to prevent accidental pregnancies, spaying is a responsible and reasonable choice for many people."


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Chris Wild said:


> If you read my post, you will see that I clearly stated I was pulling the number 1 out of the air as an example because it made for easy math to illustrate my point.
> 
> No where did I say that the risk is 1.26%. I said that *if* the risk in intact bitches is 1%, a number I pulled out of the air for easy illustration, then a 26% increase is NOT jumping to 26%, it is in fact going from 1% to 1.26%. This is why the wording is very important.
> 
> ...


You mean you were pre-vet in undergrad? How would you get into vet school (go into all that debt) then decide to "switch majors"? Vet school is not a "major" or at least I've never heard another person refer to it that way. That doesn't make sense to me. If you are aware, then you should know that many of them are researchers.........I'm pretty certain they understand how to read and interpret research papers  And many vet schools require statistics and calculus at least to gain entry. 
You can believe what you like, but the risk is 26% overall (as in 1 in 4). If you honestly can tell me you know more about this than a board certified internal medicine specialist, then please show me your credentials, reasoning, and research to back it up.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> I think I go with Chris. she obviously knows what she is talking about.


Are you going to go to her too when your dog needs surgery? Since obviously she knows more than the vets out there according to you.........


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

pupresq said:


> I wholeheartedly agree that politics should never be used to skew science. While I think spay/neuter is the right way to go for pet overpopulation reasons, that doesn't change what the science says or doesn't say and that's as it should be.
> 
> That said - what the science _does_ say is that *the lifetime risk of mammary tumors in an intact or later spayed female dog is about 1 in 4*. That's _not_ percentage of a percentage, or increase over the norm and if Dog World said that it was, they got it wrong.
> 
> ...


thumbs up, fantastic post and this is exactly what I have been trying to get out all along.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

I'll repost this since clearly it was missed on the end of the last page: 

Incidence
In a recent British study mammary neoplasia was the third most commonly reported malignancy in dogs. (Dobson) The highest relative risk for mammary tumors was found in Boxers, Cocker spaniels, English Springer Spaniels and Dachshunds. (Moe) Earlier studies have reported CMT as the second most common neoplasm of dogs in both sexes. (Moulton) Dogs spayed before the first estrus, between first and second estrus and after second estrus have occurrences of 0.05%, 8.0% and 26% respectively. The same study also showed that the intact female dogs over two years of age have a seven fold increase in risk of developing mammary gland tumors compared to females neutered prior to six months of age. (Schneider) However a recent study reported no association between age at diagnosis, obesity or hormone status and mammary tumors. (Philibert)


I can post more from this if needed but this is written by a board certified vet internal medicine specialist. I'm not sure how anyone could misinterpret that to say it's a "26% increase."


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

ugavet2012 said:


> Are you going to go to her too when your dog needs surgery? Since obviously she knows more than the vets out there according to you.........


ummm no. I go to a vet.I just trust her more because I have read her posts and she seems very knowledgeable. And yes "vet" is a major, its short for "Veterinarian Medicine".


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Oy vey!

This is gonna get ugly. Before I believe either figure I'm gonna have to sit down and read the papers and the statistics carefully in each one.

ugavet,
I get what you're saying "board certified" but I do have to kind of get a chuckle out of that one. Lots of "board certified" vets also tell people that Science Diet is, hands down, the best food their is for their dogs....that Wellness 5 is going to send their dogs into kidney failure their puppies because of the protein level (which is actually less than Science Diet's mainly corn-based protein levels), and that raw diets will kill their dogs from samonella or the protein levels. Oh, and don't forget that vet recently of one of the poster's GSD on here that couldn't figure out a dog with projectile poop and gross weight loss was because of EPI. Actually, they striaght up refused to test for one of the most common issues in GSD's.

Sooooooooooo. With all due respect to that one. A vet's research and opinions are NOT all that sometimes.

I could continue on with lawyers' bad opinions and Dr's bad opinions. I, unfortunately, am very familiar with a defense attorney who gets papers with blatent lies and secondary sources published all the time...........so publications aren't all that either sometimes. It really is based on the peer review process and quality and reputation of the paper..........


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> ummm no. I go to a vet.I just trust her more because I have read her posts and she seems very knowledgeable. And yes "vet" is a major, its short for "Veterinarian Medicine".



No it's not a "major," it's professional school. You major in pre-vet sciences or something like that.......you major in biology if you're going to med school is another example.........people in med school don't say "I'm majoring in medicine" they say "I'm in med school" When someone says "major" that to mean means undergrad. If you're doing a PhD, you don't say "I'm majoring in the effects that radiation has on mice" (just for example).


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

ugavet2012 said:


> You mean you were pre-vet in undergrad? How would you get into vet school (go into all that debt) then decide to "switch majors"? Vet school is not a "major" or at least I've never heard another person refer to it that way. That doesn't make sense to me. If you are aware, then you should know that many of them are researchers.........I'm pretty certain they understand how to read and interpret research papers  And many vet schools require statistics and calculus at least to gain entry. .


No, I went to vet school. I completed pre-vet, was accepted into vet school and attended a year of vet school before I came to realize that being a vet really wasn't for me after all. Lots of debt you bet, but better than accumulating more debt to enter a profession I decided I didn't want to do, and it didn't take long to finish a completely different major and graduate college even though I had almost 80 more credits than needed to get a degree by the time all was said and done.

Which really has nothing to do with anything. My whole point is that no one is perfect, even vets and professors, and misinterpretations of statistics are common.





ugavet2012 said:


> You can believe what you like, but the risk is 26% overall (as in 1 in 4). If you honestly can tell me you know more about this than a board certified internal medicine specialist, then please show me your credentials, reasoning, and research to back it up.


I would like to see actual documentation of the 1 in 4 statistics you and others are mentioning because the papers I have read speak of an *increased* risk. And interestingly, the Merck Vet Manual agrees with my interpretation of the numbers.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> Oy vey!
> 
> This is gonna get ugly. Before I believe either figure I'm gonna have to sit down and read the papers and the statistics carefully in each one.
> 
> ...


And there are reasons behind the dog food thing that I won't get into. I don't like Science diet either but you need to know all the facts before making such a broad statement.

and yes, dogs do/can get sick from salmonella from raw diets. Believe what you want, but my professor just today has seen himself cases of this.

You also need to remember you can't believe the stories of anyone who posts here unless you personally know them I guess  There's probably a whole heck of a lot to that story that no one knows.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Pup,

Can you send (PM if you like) links to the studies you've read that indicate it is 26%, not 26% increase? I know you wouldn't state science says so if you hadn't read actual studies, and I truly would like to see the actual science and read it, rather than just posts of opinion on a board, or copy/pastes of summary articles or links to vague discussions on other message boards.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

ugavet2012 said:


> And there are reasons behind the dog food thing that I won't get into. I don't like Science diet either but you need to know all the facts before making such a broad statement.
> 
> and yes, dogs do/can get sick from salmonella from raw diets. Believe what you want, but my professor just today has seen himself cases of this.
> 
> You also need to remember you can't believe the stories of anyone who posts here unless you personally know them I guess  There's probably a whole heck of a lot to that story that no one knows.


:rofl::rofl:

So wait....you should feed a higher protein diet that is based on corn protein rather than meat protein?? WHAT?!

Well...yeah...people can get sick from samonella from chicken or E. coli in spinach in a restaurant too. You trying to tell me we should all become vegans than only eat whole grain pasta? You weighs the risks of being careful with products with the benefits of eating an appropriate diet.

And no, TRUST ME.........there is no risk with feeding your puppy Orijen other than it might not agree with its stomach. I would love for you to produce a good, reliable study disproving that one.

I'm not sure it will serve your purpose to be condecending to people. Many people on here are quite educated and very well read scientifically (and not to toot my own horn, but me included) and know a great deal about dogs' health (some more than others, and some in certain subject more than others--non-raw nutrition is my thing). I've "rubbed elbows" for years with "top" vets from Cornell and CSU. 

I've been around the block enough with various animals to know there are cooky vets out there. Some that are even teaching. I've seen the effects of bad vetting on horses and dogs plenty of times. Yes, idiots do get through vet school. I was merely using the EPI example from this board because it happened recently.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> :rofl::rofl:
> 
> So wait....you should feed a higher protein diet that is based on corn protein rather than meat protein?? WHAT?!
> 
> ...


I'm not being condescending at all (nor am I name dropping...), I am saying you need to be careful about using such a broad paint brush by saying that vets who trust and promote Science Diet are dead wrong. One of my favorite professors is our clinical vet nutritionist, and I know she has her reasons (again that I won't get into here). 

Last I checked, Orijen hasn't done any AAFCO studies of their own. (Again, last I checked). I like that brand but it's worth mentioning.

I'm also rather turned off by the arrogance some people are portraying on here.........seriously, having the attitude that you know better than numerous people who have clearly proved themselves won't earn you many friends. 

and none of my statistics have been from some "random other message board" for that matter.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

And I can add to it a vet who misdiagnosed pano as severe HD and euthanized an 8mo pup for it (client of a breeder friend), another who convinced a client that when his dog was certified OFA Good that he was dysplastic because "anything less than Excellent means some form of dysplasia" (club member).

And then just recenly myself (and some board members will probably remember).
One vet who misdiagnosed cancer as arthritis.
An oncology clinic full of experts who charged a fortune for tests and x-rays and diagnosed him with cancer, only to find out when we went to another oncology clinic for a second opinion that all of the first x-rays were so screwed up they were useless for diagnostic purposes and had to be re-done (and paid for again of course).
A "board certified" oncologist and surgeon at a highly ranked vet school who performed an amputation on my dog's leg once cancer finally was diagnosed, then told me on the phone right after surgery that she didn't see any evidance of cancer when she had him opened up for surgery and the tissues all looked healthy but she took the leg anyway..... and didn't understand why I wasn't happy with her telling me he didn't have cancer afterall and had his leg amputated for nothing.
Having to demand the amputated leg tissues be tested.. twice because they performed the test improperly the first time.. to find out he did have cancer after all, but it wasn't the kind they originally diagnosed him with.

And I could go on. There are many excellent vets out there, and there are many who are not. Just like the old joke "You know what you call the guy who finished dead last in med school? Doctor." 

I don't dislike or distrust vets, I actually have a lot of respect for them, but I also have learned not to take everything they (or anyone else) says at face value. No matter how well regarded, they are not infalable (even though many certainly seem to think they are). People should *always* do their own research far beyond what is told to them by their vet, or what they read on any message board.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

ugavet2012 said:


> I'm not being condescending at all (nor am I name dropping...), I am saying you need to be careful about using such a broad paint brush by saying that vets who trust and promote Science Diet are dead wrong. One of my favorite professors is our clinical vet nutritionist, and I know she has her reasons (again that I won't get into here).
> 
> Last I checked, Orijen hasn't done any AAFCO studies of their own. (Again, last I checked). I like that brand but it's worth mentioning.
> 
> ...


Well, I hate to tell you this, but every other post of yours has been along the lines of "you're wrong. my PROFESSOR told me...." Ahem. Yes, that is name dropping (and if you didn't catch the sarcasm laced in my post, MY name dropping was in jest back to yours ).

If you take a break and go back and read some of your posts, I think (hope) you will find them very much condecending. I'll admit I know nothing about mammory gland tumors, and was interested in finding out more about the research since it got brought up. And then you completely turned me off when it turned into an "I'm in vet school and my professor told me and you don't know what you're talking about because you said 'majored' in vet school instead of 'went' to vet school."  Sorry. Condecending.

And yes, any vet who recommends a non-prescription Science Diet off the bad is a nutritional moron or just plain unethical. You can give me 5000 arguments up the wazoo, but that's my opinion. There are cetaintly reasons to feed it: one of their prescription food, it just happens to be the only food your SIBO dog agrees with, etc. But to tell a client that it's the end all be all food and something like Wellness is carp?  and shame on them!

ETA: A word to the wise. While your professors and other vets are there to guide you and teach you, don't take everything they say as gospel. If everyone did this we would have no advances in medicine and science. Just something to think about.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

GSDElsa said:


> ... "you're wrong. my PROFESSOR told me...."


 To me it sounded more like 'my MAMA told me...'  

I think, ugavet2012's professors have nothing to do with their student's lack of understanding of math and statistics. I'm actually pretty confident that they would be ashamed when they had read this thread and saw their names mentioned in such context.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Please show me my post where I used the words you have in quotations.  I am saying until someone on here can back up what they are saying, I will believe the people WHO CAN back up what they are saying. Nlor was I name dropping by mentioning what my own professors have to me. Saying "I have rubbed elbows with some of the top vets from so and so" is pretty silly and I couldn't care less. that could mean you are their janitor. Define who is a "top vet." 

Heck yes there are bad vets......I know a few in my class who will probably turn out that way. But comparing someone who is board certified to a general practitioner is CRAZY. Is anyone here aware what sort of time, dedication, intelligence, etc. ETC. goes into getting those extra letters behind your name???? You are comparing apples and oranges. 

*Population-based incidence of mammary tumours in some dog breeds.*

Moe L.
Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Box 8146 Dep., N-0033 Oslo, Norway.
*Abstract*

Data from two population-based studies in four Norwegian counties were used to calculate the crude incidence of mammary tumours, and the age- and breed-specific incidence of mammary tumours in female dogs of three different breeds. The largest study comprised 14401 histologically verified tumour cases from four counties covered by the Norwegian Canine Cancer Register. The registry covers about 25% of the total Norwegian dog population. The second study was a census in Norway that was sent to all owners of the following breeds: boxers, bichon frisé and Bernese mountain dogs, to estimate the age distribution of the female dog population at risk of developing mammary tumours. The crude incidence of malignant mammary tumours in female dogs of any breed was 53.3%. The highest relative risk ratio of mammary tumours was found in boxers, cocker spaniels, English springer spaniels and dachshunds. The mean age of histologically diagnosed mammary tumours was 7.9 years in boxers and 7.8 years in springer spaniels, compared with 8.8 years in all other breeds. In the four Norwegian counties from 1992 to 1997, the population-based incidence rates (for all ages) of malignant mammary tumours per 1000 female dogs per year were 35.47 in boxers, 3.87 in Bernese mountain dogs and 17.69 in bichon frisé. Mammary cancer is the most common tumour in female dogs in Norway, and represents a population of almost entirely reproductively intact females. The age-specific incidence rates for mammary cancer vary considerably among the three breeds that were studied in detail.


I think the fact that the incidence of mammary tumors is 53.3% speaks for itself. who cares about statistics for each heat cycle when you have numbers like that? Don't try to tell me that's not significant, that number alone is enough to make me spay.

If anyone would like more than "some abstract" please feel free to look this study up yourself. If you have the info from an abstract it shouldn't be that difficult........which is what I was assuming before.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

ugavet2012 said:


> Please show me my post where I used the words you have in quotations.
> 
> 
> > You're right...I'm sorry...the culmination of things you said is actually more condecending that what I put in quotations  back to you.
> ...


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Once again I will explain this. I was backing up my point that these aren't some lay people off the street, these are people with specialized schooling, knowledge, and the credentials to back it up. I wasn't name dropping for the sake of name dropping nor did I refer to anyone in any as a "top" anything. If I had said "this one person I know says that ........" would that have sounded better to you? From now on, I will refer to my professors as "this girl/guy I know", will that make you happy? 

Edit: lol I just had to point this out...
#1 is me pointing out that someone who obviously knows their stuff recommends a certain brand of food. Not condescending. 
#2 was backing up my fact that I stated right before that. Not condescending. 
#3 is me getting irritated that most people think that if they wanted to get into vet school, they could have. It's NO WHERE near that simple and some people apply 7-8 times and don't get in. Excuse me I don't like people playing down the work I have put into this. 
#4 is sarcasm. 
#5 is the same as #3. aka a pet peeve of mine. 
#6 is pointing out that I would be careful about stepping on someone's toes who knows more than you about certain things. Not condescending, I meant it in jest. 
#7 is the same as #6.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

ugavet2012 said:


> Don't try to tell me that's not significant, that number alone is enough to make me spay.


 What about the findings from the Purdue university's vet professors? I don't know if they compare with ugavet2012 professors, but they probably know something, too.

'Risk for bone sarcoma was significantly influenced by age at gonadectomy. Male and female dogs that underwent gonadectomy before 1 year of age had an approximate one in four lifetime risk for bone sarcoma and were significantly more likely to develop bone sarcoma than dogs that were sexually intact." 

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Nov;11(11):1434-40.
*Endogenous gonadal hormone exposure and bone sarcoma risk.*

Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters DJ.
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA.


Don't know if this article was already mentioned, so I apologize if I repeat it here.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

ugavet2012 said:


> #3 is me getting irritated that most people think that if they wanted to get into vet school, they could have. It's NO WHERE near that simple and some people apply 7-8 times and don't get in. Excuse me I don't like people playing down the work I have put into this.


 Sometimes it's very hard to realize that there are people out there who are much more talented than yourself, and that they do have a choice what to do and where to go just because they CAN do a lot of things without that amount of effort as you need to put into one thing. Sorry, but welcome to real life.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

oh but you are being condescending now too......! Bad Bad! 

I know of that study and have seen it too. I have also seen others that seemed to contradict that.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

ugavet2012 said:


> #3 is me getting irritated that most people think that if they wanted to get into vet school, they could have. It's NO WHERE near that simple and some people apply 7-8 times and don't get in. Excuse me I don't like people playing down the work I have put into this.


Ah ha! It's med school/vet school (or also known as "short coat" syndrome) 

I think those couple of sentences have pretty much summoned up a lot of the, um, "words" that have gone into your posts.

See, I think the one thing you are forgetting about "your professors" is that...just like you want to put down people on here for NOT being "your professors" is that we, quite frankly has seen some morons out there--"board certified" or not. We don't know know that your "clinical internist" or "favorite professor" at all isn't someone that we don't agree with (and JUST BECAUSE they have those initial after their name doesn't make them right or a good vet). And not only that. This isn't YOUR research that you are trying to back up. It's what "your professors" have told you and you have intrepreted from "your professors." 

Whether you're wrong or right at this point isn't the issue--it's how your portraying the argument and what you're saying. "But my momma told me!" didn't get you far in grade school, and I will tell "but my professors told me!" won't get you far in your career, either.

Oh, and I know I'm being the Queen of 'Scending. And I like it.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

GSD07 said:


> Sometimes it's very hard to realize that there are people out there who are much more talented than yourself, and that they do have a choice what to do and where to go just because they CAN do a lot of things without that amount of effort as you need to put into one thing. Sorry, but welcome to real life.



Where did I say I didn't know that? I am pointing out that I do not assume I could have gotten into law or med school or do anyone else's job because I haven't been there. I don't think you read what I wrote. I get irritated at the high school drop out who says "yeah I was going to go to vet school but then decided not to." There are plenty of people out there that have 4.0s from prestigious undergrads who have not gotten into vet school......THAT is my point. Because there are so many qualified applicants, it's somewhat of a crap-shoot. Please don't assume something without knowing the facts. I also don't think you should be assuming what my talents are or the amount of effort I have put into this relative to what others have (which I will tell you is much, much less).


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> Ah ha! It's med school/vet school (or also known as "short coat" syndrome)
> 
> I think those couple of sentences have pretty much summoned up a lot of the, um, "words" that have gone into your posts.
> 
> ...


please show me agian where I ever said what you have in quotations. I'm still waiting.

You are also one who is assuming. I do not have this "shot coat" syndrome you are referring to, I am saying that because there are so many extremely qualified applicants, there are some who never make it for one reason or another. NO ONE should assume they could get in, I don't care what you've done or what your GPA is.

And the condescending comment wasn't directed at you.......but at least we can now see what your intentions are.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

I feel like I've explained this now about 50 times. I once told someone that I disagreed with what a vet was doing at a practice I volunteered at with something re: cat behavior problems (and I said it just that way......that I "disagreed"...behavior is my special area of interest just FYI) and this person spread about the practice what I said and everyone was saying that I thought I knew more than this vet and that particular vet HATED me from then on. would the same thing have happened if I had gotten a master's in animal behavior and was a certified behaviorist (letters behind my name and everything!)? Probably not. Does that prove my point yet?


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

ugavet2012 said:


> I also don't think you should be assuming what my talents are ...


 Can I make some assumptions about your math talents based on this thread? 

Good luck in your study, seriously, it's a big deal, and you deserve to feel good about getting into school. If it is a good school then you will be encouraged to not be afraid to question authorities and to arrive to your own conclusion your very own way, hopefully by the time you graduate. Please become a good vet.


----------



## Wildtim (Dec 13, 2001)

ugavet2012 said:


> *
> I think the fact that the incidence of mammary tumors is 53.3% speaks for itself. who cares about statistics for each heat cycle when you have numbers like that? Don't try to tell me that's not significant, that number alone is enough to make me spay.*
> 
> If anyone would like more than "some abstract" please feel free to look this study up yourself. If you have the info from an abstract it shouldn't be that difficult........which is what I was assuming before.


You read it wrong........again.

53.3% of the tumors found are malignant, not 53.3% of dogs had tumors. 

The highest incident rate for a malignant tumor found was 35.47 per 1000 animals in the boxer breed. That would be a rate of 3.5% of the boxers studied had a malignant tumor. The other breeds had even fewer cases of malignancy per thousand animals, therefore an even lower percentage of the animals in the the other breeds had cancer.


Last time I checked 3.5% was just a little bit less than 26%. roughly one eighth as many cases in fact.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

GSD07 said:


> What about the findings from the Purdue university's vet professors? I don't know if they compare with ugavet2012 professors, but they probably know something, too.
> 
> 'Risk for bone sarcoma was significantly influenced by age at gonadectomy. Male and female dogs that underwent gonadectomy before 1 year of age had an approximate one in four lifetime risk for bone sarcoma and were significantly more likely to develop bone sarcoma than dogs that were sexually intact."
> 
> ...


I mentioned it as one people frequently misinterpret. I don't think anyone is arguing with their findings - in Rottweilers, a breed selected because of their extremely high rate of bone cancer, the longer the animal was intact, the lower the incidence of osteosarcoma. Not saying you are, but people frequently misunderstand the statement you quoted in the abstract and think that it means that altering after a year is protective. It's not. And even if you want to just talk about Rotties, you have to compare that one in four number to what it decreases to if you wait - which isn't zero.

If you want maximum osteosarcoma protection benefit, you should probably never alter your pet, or should wait years and years. But you have to keep in mind that osteosarcoma is a much less common cancer in non-Rotties. But even if you never alter your pet, they can still get bone cancer. 

Contrast this with the fact that mammary cancer is FAR more common and that dogs spayed before their first heat almost never get it. The payoff is a lot more clear cut. 

The waters are slightly muddied by the fact that bone cancer has a much worse prognosis than mammary cancer but overall your dog is less likely to get it in the first place and not spaying or spaying later doesn't mean they're safe.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

ugavet2012 said:


> ...
> I never said I wouldn't push s/n at 6 mths ONLY due to the responsibility, that is just one reason. I don't think it's for a "political" reason either.......I have seen with my own eyes dogs that I have gotten to known being euth'd due to overpopulation. It has NOTHING to do with politics. It has to due with me doing what I can to help decrease the numbers of adoptable animals being PTS. As you have already kind of mentioned, my opinion on this is normal, and I certainly don't see any of the vets I have worked for hanging up their stethoscopes and running for office.
> 
> The benefits to spaying are great, the health benefits to neutering......there's not really a difference HOWEVER neutering a dog CAN alter their behavior and get rid of undesirable behaviors that may also in turn cause an owner to relinquish a dog. So the benefit hugely outweighs the cost to me no matter which way you slice the pie.


I used the term "political" because you're stating that you will be allowing pet over population, a non-medical issue, to influence medical decisions you'll be making for your patients. IMHO that's wrong, your patient's well being should be your first, and only concern.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Wildtim said:


> You read it wrong........again.
> 
> 53.3% of the tumors found are malignant, not 53.3% of dogs had tumors.
> 
> ...


You're *assuming* I read it wrong.....so  right back at ya. Pointing out that that statistic is for malignant tumors is not helping Chris's case. (As in, that makes the fact even more sobering). 

Please post your research article for the boxer thing. I can't believe you came on here with that and didn't post an article frankly.........Not to mention you didn't put a gender in there so that must be accounting for tumors of male boxers as well. I don't see what you posted has to do with much of anything honestly. 

I would love to see where I did math and it was wrong. I actually have ALWAYS gotten A's in my math classes (including college classes), so I wouldn't ASSUME (again) that you know my math skills.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Wildtim said:


> Last time I checked 3.5% was just a little bit less than 26%. roughly one eighth as many cases in fact.


Those are two totally different statistics though and not comparable. One is a population level wide incidence of mammary tumors, which includes both altered and unaltered animals, and one is the % of unaltered/late altered dogs who develop mammary tumors. So, for example, the overall incidence of lung cancer in the general population might be one thing but the incidence among people who smoke two packs a day is something much much higher. 

When it comes to the decision to spay or not spay, people need to look at the % of spayed dogs who get mammary cancer versus the % of unaltered ones who do. These population wide stats that include both types aren't really instructive.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

ugavet2012 said:


> *Population-based incidence of mammary tumours in some dog breeds.*
> 
> Moe L.
> Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Box 8146 Dep., N-0033 Oslo, Norway.
> ...


Tim got the information from the article YOU posted. Why would he repost the article when it should be safe to assume you read it when you posted it?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Wow, I am not the only one with math and statistics problems in the middle of the night. The one said a 26 percent increase but it sounds like 26% and that is how these things get mixed up. That was the original point of this post.

Anyhow going with something that ugavet2012 posted, I will not spay another female, at least not without there being something currently wrong with the reproductive organs. 

If the median age of mammary tumors is ten years, and oviahysterectomy increases the risk of hemangiosarcoma. My spayed bitch just died of that. The dog world magazine mentioned that as well and included in the study they were reporting on was bitches spayed after eight years. 

So we are reducing the rate of possible mammary tumors that usually show up at about ten years, but increasing the rate of other cancers, osteosarcoma and hemangiosarcoma that take our pets earlier. 

Jean, you have a point about people allowing their intact animals to have unplanned litters. But I cannot believe that the ends justify the means, that people should keep us in the dark because of the possibility of adding to the problem of dogs in shelters. 

I think that vets should be obligated to be honest about the risks, regardless to the social impact. There are only a percentage of the general population who are going to be so concerned about the spay/neuter thing that they will actually change what they intended to do anyway. Vets have been pushing spay and neuter for decades, one would think we should not have a problem. If vets stop pushing, a few more dogs might go unalterred. People that do not want to be bothered with heat cycles will still spay. People who do not care whether their bitch has a litter or not will not. 

The dog world magazine also mentioned humans. Women who have had hysterectomys with ovaries removed also died sooner than those who had the ovaries left in. I have been screaming this for a long time. If those hormones weren't important, they would be doing a lot more complete hysterectomies on women as well. 

what it really sounds like is that there is no more reason healthwise to spay a bitch early as there is to neutering a dog. Many people seem to feel they should spay their bitches early and wait on their dogs. But 1% testicular cancer rate, or 1% mammary tumor rate is just not as scarey as osteosarcoma and hemangiosarcoma.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

ugavet2012 said:


> Please post your research article for the boxer thing. I can't believe you came on here with that and didn't post an article frankly.........Not to mention you didn't put a gender in there so that must be accounting for tumors of male boxers as well. I don't see what you posted has to do with much of anything honestly.


YOU posted that article LOL And you MISINTERPRETED the numbers  Tim just corrected you.



ugavet2012 said:


> I would love to see where I did math and it was wrong. I actually have ALWAYS gotten A's in my math classes (including college classes), so I wouldn't ASSUME (again) that you know my math skills.


 LOL Just keep demonstrating them


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Jax08 said:


> Tim got the information from the article YOU posted. Why would he repost the article when it should be safe to assume you read it when you posted it?


Just because I read it doesn't mean I remember that. I honestly thought that was pulled out of thin air because, gee, he didn't mention female dogs.....or mammary.......or anything else to make me think just by glancing over it that he got it from that. If you're going to talk about something from someone else's post, at least make it accurate.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

ugavet2012 said:


> please show me agian where I ever said what you have in quotations. I'm still waiting.
> 
> You are also one who is assuming. I do not have this "shot coat" syndrome you are referring to, I am saying that because there are so many extremely qualified applicants, there are some who never make it for one reason or another. NO ONE should assume they could get in, I don't care what you've done or what your GPA is.
> 
> And the condescending comment wasn't directed at you.......but at least we can now see what your intentions are.


 
Why are you even bringing up how hard it is to get into vet school? Did ANYONE here say that it was easy or that anyone could get in? The only person here actually talking about vet school was someone that got INTO vet school and went for a year and didn't like it. No one else has even mentioned getting into vet school.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

pupresq said:


> ...
> Contrast this with the fact that mammary cancer is FAR more common and that dogs spayed before their first heat almost never get it. The payoff is a lot more clear cut. ....


IMHO this is a slippery slope ... the incidence of mammary cancer versus the incidence of hemangiosarcoma which is higher in spayed bitches. Perhaps it's not as common, but it's a far deadlier form of cancer. Personally if I had to make the terrible choice, I'd rather help one of the Hooligans battle mammary cancer versus hemangiosarcoma.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

GSD07 said:


> YOU posted that article LOL And you MISINTERPRETED the numbers  Tim just corrected you.
> 
> LOL Just keep demonstrating them



OMG this is getting beyond frustating and to the point it's not worth my time. I NEVER misinterpreted ANY NUMBER (nor was there any math done in that post) . I WAS SIMPLY IN A HURRY BECAUSE I NEEDED TO TAKE MY DOGS OUT AND DIDN'T PROOF MY POST. Quit _looking_ for ways to make me wrong. If you're going to point something out, at least make it worth reading and not something you're stretching for.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> Why are you even bringing up how hard it is to get into vet school? Did ANYONE here say that it was easy or that anyone could get in? The only person here actually talking about vet school was someone that got INTO vet school and went for a year and didn't like it. No one else has even mentioned getting into vet school.



um I brought it up b/c it was relevant to the post? I am starting to feel some jealously here honestly........


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

arycrest said:


> IMHO this is a slippery slope ... the incidence of mammary cancer versus the incidence of hemangiosarcoma which is higher in spayed bitches. Perhaps it's not as common, but it's a far deadlier form of cancer. Personally if I had to make the terrible choice, I'd rather help one of the Hooligans battle mammary cancer versus hemangiosarcoma.


Not MALIGNANT cancer you wouldn't. By the time it's diagnosed, it's usually spread to the rest of the body (like osteosarcomas). And you can't do anything to help determine if it will be benign vs. malignant.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

:rofl: You really need to be aware of some of the careers others have before you think they are jealous of you. I believe at least one of these ppl on this thread is a PhD.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

ugavet2012 said:


> Not MALIGNANT cancer you wouldn't


 Are you really in a vet school? 

Please reread Tim's post re numbers misinterpretation. And please do proof your posts before submitting. If you don't want to do that then may I suggest to start a diary?


----------



## Wildtim (Dec 13, 2001)

ugavet2012 said:


> Not MALIGNANT cancer you wouldn't. By the time it's diagnosed, it's usually spread to the rest of the body (like osteosarcomas). And you can't do anything to help determine if it will be benign vs. malignant.


Correct me if I'm wrong but I was and still am under the impression that Malignant meant cancer whereas benign meant well, benign or non cancerous growth.

Malignancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Benignity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

To use a study with boxers in it, I feel, skews the conversation. Boxers have a higher rate of tumors, not necessarily malignant, and those tumors generally have a lower aggressiveness. We have two boxers and I have done the research. Spent hours and hours researching because one of our girls has mast cell tumors. Given the breed is more prone to tumors negates the study that was posted.

Now, having said that...I am all for spaying/neutering. I'm 100% with Jean on the reasons why.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Jax08 said:


> :rofl: You really need to be aware of some of the careers others have before you think they are jealous of you. I believe at least one of these ppl on this thread is a PhD.


ok? what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that people in high school commonly aspire to be a PhD when they grow up? I never knew anyone. I know MULTIPLE people who are human doctors who are jealous of me being in vet school and are open about it. I don't see your point. I am not AT ALL jealous of anyone else's career choice b/c this my dream one. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Wildtim (Dec 13, 2001)

Jax08 said:


> Tim got the information from the article YOU posted. Why would he repost the article when it should be safe to assume you read it when you posted it?


Thank you.

I only took the information that she posted an interpreted it.

I never went to vet school, but I was pretty good at story problems back in primary.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Wildtim said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but I was and still am under the impression that Malignant meant cancer whereas benign meant well, benign or non cancerous growth.
> 
> Malignancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Benignity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A benign growth is still cancer.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

ugavet2012 said:


> um I brought it up b/c it was relevant to the post? I am starting to feel some jealously here honestly........


How is applying to vet school 7 or 8 times relevent to a post about mammory cancer?

Jealous? Honey, I LECTURE to med and law students. Maybe next week I'll start with you vet students (hmmmmmmm. I have a topic in mind). Watch out.............I might be at a vet school near you in the near future. 
Where the heck is the devil horn icon? I want one!!!!


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

selzer said:


> So we are reducing the rate of possible mammary tumors that usually show up at about ten years, but increasing the rate of other cancers, osteosarcoma and hemangiosarcoma that take our pets earlier.


That's one of the interpretation problems though - not altering does not protect your dogs from osteosarcoma or hemangiosarcoma. It may lower risk, but you have to look at what the risk was to begin with and how much it's likely to be lowered by. You can't just put a mark on each side of the equation for each kind of disease/cancer pro/con. They aren't comparable so making an informed decision becomes a lot more complicated.



selzer said:


> Jean, you have a point about people allowing their intact animals to have unplanned litters. But I cannot believe that the ends justify the means, that people should keep us in the dark because of the possibility of adding to the problem of dogs in shelters.


Who's saying they should keep owners in the dark? You can make an excellent case for spaying as the healthiest alternative, as well as the best from a reproductive/population standpoint. 



selzer said:


> I think that vets should be obligated to be honest about the risks, regardless to the social impact.


I agree. And there are lots of scientifically demonstrated risks to leaving your bitch intact, so the risks are far from being one sided.



selzer said:


> Vets have been pushing spay and neuter for decades, one would think we should not have a problem. If vets stop pushing, a few more dogs might go unalterred. People that do not want to be bothered with heat cycles will still spay. People who do not care whether their bitch has a litter or not will not.


I'd like to see stats on that. My observation has been that in areas where S/N is heavily promoted and available, dog populations go way down, shelters are killing fewer animals, and demand for most types of dogs exceeds supply. In areas where S/N has only been more recently promoted, is less available etc. the unwanted pet population is far far higher. 



selzer said:


> The dog world magazine also mentioned humans. Women who have had hysterectomys with ovaries removed also died sooner than those who had the ovaries left in. I have been screaming this for a long time. If those hormones weren't important, they would be doing a lot more complete hysterectomies on women as well.


Dogs and humans really aren't comparable in this case. Dogs have a far higher incidence of mammary tumors than humans do, for one thing. For another, the extreme difference in lifespan leads to a lot of related differences.



selzer said:


> what it really sounds like is that there is no more reason healthwise to spay a bitch early as there is to neutering a dog. Many people seem to feel they should spay their bitches early and wait on their dogs. But 1% testicular cancer rate, or 1% mammary tumor rate is just not as scarey as osteosarcoma and hemangiosarcoma.


Really?? That's not what it sounds like to me at all. The health benefits to spaying are WAY higher than the health benefits to neutering. Study after study bears that out. They are in no way comparable. And where are you getting a 1% mammary tumor rate - at least for an intact female?


----------



## Wildtim (Dec 13, 2001)

ugavet2012 said:


> ok? what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that people in high school commonly aspire to be a PhD when they grow up? I never knew anyone. I know MULTIPLE people who are human doctors who are jealous of me being in vet school and are open about it. I don't see your point.


Thats because after having to deal with _people _all daythey think it would be nice to have patients who didn't talk, not because they really want to be DVM's:wild:


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> How is applying to vet school 7 or 8 times relevent to a post about mammory cancer?
> 
> Jealous? Honey, I LECTURE to med and law students. Maybe next week I'll start with you vet students (hmmmmmmm. I have a topic in mind). Watch out.............I might be at a vet school near you in the near future.
> Where the heck is the devil horn icon? I want one!!!!


I don't care if you give lectures to the president. What does that have to do with it? you can be ANYTHING and still be jealous of someone's else success, regardless of your own. Now I am sensing immaturity.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

And I apologize for cutting up your post to respond point by point. It wasn't intended to be excessively argumentative, just seemed like it would improve clarity to respond to things individually.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Wildtim said:


> Thats because after having to deal with _people _all daythey think it would be nice to have patients who didn't talk, not because they really want to be DVM's:wild:


 This is a common misconception. Being a vet IS dealing with people all day. I spend more time dealing with people than animals when I work at vet clinics.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

ugavet2012 said:


> I don't care if you give lectures to the president. What does that have to do with it? you can be ANYTHING and still be jealous of someone's else success, regardless of your own. Now I am sensing immaturity.


 And I am sensing a troll


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

ugavet2012 said:


> ok? what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that people in high school commonly aspire to be a PhD when they grow up? I never knew anyone. I know MULTIPLE people who are human doctors who are jealous of me being in vet school and are open about it. I don't see your point. I am not AT ALL jealous of anyone else's career choice b/c this my dream one. Different strokes for different folks.


Welll...you are a real piece of work. You throw out a contradictory statement and then get mad and nasty when someone responds to it? There are times to walk away from a thread. Perhaps this is your time.

If you would take 5 minutes and read what others are writing, instead of being defensive and insulting, you may learn something. If you are like this with your future clients, you won't last long.

My point was....these people have no reason to be jealous of you. They have many more years education, experience and knowledge on you. Your response does not even make any sense in regards to what I posted originally.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

ugavet2012 said:


> A benign growth is still cancer.


To clarify - because cancer/tumors/malignant are all being used interchangeably here, but aren't quite. The statistic is 26% of intact bitches develop mammary tumors and half of those tumors are malignant. So your intact bitch has a 1 in 4 chance of getting mammary tumors but if she does, there is a 50% chance (or 53% in that other study) chance that they will be malignant.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Jax08 said:


> Welll...you are a real piece of work. You throw out a contradictory statement and then get mad and nasty when someone responds to it? There are times to walk away from a thread. Perhaps this is your time.
> 
> If you would take 5 minutes and read what others are writing, instead of being defensive and insulting, you may learn something. If you are like this with your future clients, you won't last long.
> 
> My point was....these people have no reason to be jealous of you. They have many more years education, experience and knowledge on you. Your response does not even make any sense in regards to what I posted originally.


I'm sorry that I don't agree with you (I'm guessing that's what you want to hear) but I don't see what anyone's education......success. ..... ETC. ETC. ETC. has to do with it. Just like I POINTED OUT and you must have missed, I have had human doctors who are VERY successful tell me they are jealous of me. Gee maybe I should tell them that just *can't* be true! silly them, what ARE they thinking???!! LOL "But Dr. you are so much more knowledgeable and successful than me right now!" 

My own mother is a very successful (and intelligent) software engineer who makes over $100,000 a year and *she* is jealous of me. It will probably be years before I make that much money too........so I'm sorry, but the things you are pointing out have nothing to do with it.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

pupresq said:


> To clarify - because cancer/tumors/malignant are all being used interchangeably here, but aren't quite. The statistic is 26% of intact bitches develop mammary tumors and half of those tumors are malignant. So your intact bitch has a 1 in 4 chance of getting mammary tumors but if she does, there is a 50% chance (or 53% in that other study) chance that they will be malignant.



You're right. And the fact that apparently Tim originally believed that tumor=cancer=malignant makes the fact that he tried to say I misinterpreted the numbers even more nonsensical. Because according to his train of thought, cancer is all malignant so why should I have needed to clarify?


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

okey dokey...while we're all sitting around green with envy over the vet student....

Can we get the subject back on track?

Where are there legitimate studies showing the real statistics? Pupresq - could you please post the links to the information?


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Jax08 said:


> okey dokey...while we're all sitting around green with envy over the vet student....
> 
> Can we get the subject back on track?
> 
> Where are there legitimate studies showing the real statistics? Pupresq - could you please post the links to the information?


I've been trying to pull up stuff in the general domain but most things require a subscription to the journal - which, I admit, makes it trickier for people to go to the real science themselves. I'm trying to find things that aren't PDFs so I can at least copy and paste with citations.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Jax08 said:


> okey dokey...while we're all sitting around green with envy over the vet student....
> 
> Can we get the subject back on track?
> 
> Where are there legitimate studies showing the real statistics? Pupresq - could you please post the links to the information?



I see how this goes....my fiance does the same thing. When I make a good point, he side steps it with sarcasm. I'm not saying/nor ever said that you are all so so jealous of me  I am making a point that I have been targeted before by people who otherwise wouldn't care if I wasn't where I am. I deal with it a lot actually.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

pupresq said:


> I've been trying to pull up stuff in the general domain but most things require a subscription to the journal - which, I admit, makes it trickier for people to go to the real science themselves. I'm trying to find things that aren't PDFs so I can at least copy and paste with citations.



Good luck (in all seriousness).....this was also my problem and why I got frustrated and gave up. Just because I can pull something up and read it doesn't mean I can post it here.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

pupresq said:


> I've been trying to pull up stuff in the general domain but most things require a subscription to the journal - which, I admit, makes it trickier for people to go to the real science themselves. I'm trying to find things that aren't PDFs so I can at least copy and paste with citations.


Thanks! I've been doing alot of research on mast cells the last couple of weeks and I keep finding all the subscription sites too!

btw...I have Adobe Writer so can export the pdfs to a Word doc for you.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

ugavet2012 said:


> I see how this goes....my fiance does the same thing. When I make a good point, he side steps it with sarcasm. I'm not saying/nor ever said that you are all so so jealous of me  I am making a point that I have been targeted before by people who otherwise wouldn't care if I wasn't where I am. I deal with it a lot actually.


God called...he wants his ego back.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

For anyone affiliated with a University, you can use a resource like Science Citation Index to look for relevant papers but once you find them, you can't always put them here and you can't link to them. You can give the citations and people can go to their local university library and look them up but people seem to want a quicker fix than that. I will keep trying though.

Michelle - do you have access to the journals you need for your Mast Cell research? If not, is there anything you need? I'd be happy to download stuff for you and email it to you as a PDF. It's possible I can even find some old research I did when my Golden had a mast cell tumor in my archives. We've changed computer since then though, so that may be a longshot.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

No I don't have access. I'd be very happy to read anything you have available. The information is so widespread and I never know if the source is reliable. The best information I've found so far is a very low carb diet (I'm thinking a RAW diet) high in Omega 3's will slow it down. One growth we were watching tripled in size and suddenly 4 more spots appeared. It's not looking good since this is a recurrence and she's 10 1/2 years old.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Jax08 said:


> God called...he wants his ego back.


Good grief......let's leave the grade school comments to those actually in grade school, K? Ever think to yourself that "Hmm I don't know this person and it can hard to interpret internet talk"? Not to mention you know nothing of my life or what I've been through yet every time I try to explain, you (and you're not alone) ignore it. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Jax08 said:


> No I don't have access. I'd be very happy to read anything you have available. The information is so widespread and I never know if the source is reliable. The best information I've found so far is a very low carb diet (I'm thinking a RAW diet) high in Omega 3's will slow it down. One growth we were watching tripled in size and suddenly 4 more spots appeared. It's not looking good since this is a recurrence and she's 10 1/2 years old.


I'm so sorry!  I'll see what I can find.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Jax08 said:


> No I don't have access. I'd be very happy to read anything you have available. The information is so widespread and I never know if the source is reliable. The best information I've found so far is a very low carb diet (I'm thinking a RAW diet) high in Omega 3's will slow it down. One growth we were watching tripled in size and suddenly 4 more spots appeared. It's not looking good since this is a recurrence and she's 10 1/2 years old.


I'm sorry Jax!!


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Thanks GSDElsa and Pupresq. I've had friends who are vet techs say that if it was their dog they would not do the surgery on her. First, because of her age we could lose her on the table and second, we take a high chance of having them come back aggressively thus shortening her life. If we leave them, we could have a year or two left with her and maintaining her quality of life. It would be a much easier decision of what to do if she were a young dog that we knew was strong enough to make it through the surgery. She had a stage 1 mast cell removed 3 years ago and we were told then that it was highly likely it would return.


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

ugavet2012 said:


> *Introduction*​ Mammary tumors are the second most common group of neoplasms in dogs, following skin tumors (Fig. 1).6 They are the most common tumors in female dogs, comprising 52% of all neoplasms.3 Of the mammary gland tumors diagnosed in female dogs, 41 to 53% are diagnosed as malignant.7
> .....​





BTW, this is not a research article, this is a summary article. The original spay statistics come from this paper, which I don't have access to with my institutional log-in - I think it's too old:

Schneider R, Dorn CR, Taylor DON. Factors influencing canine mammary cancer development and postsurgical survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 43:1249-1261, 1969​


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

LisaT said:


> BTW, this is not a research article, this is a summary article. The original spay statistics come from this paper, which I don't have access to with my institutional log-in - I think it's too old:
> 
> Schneider R, Dorn CR, Taylor DON. Factors influencing canine mammary cancer development and postsurgical survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 43:1249-1261, 1969​


I'm aware, that's why I never stated it as such. I looked all over trying to gain access to the actual publication and couldn't get it up. This doesn't make is hogwash however. 

I have actually posed the question of all this on VIN. If anyone can get the correct answer to all this, it will be the people on there. At least I would hope the oncologists get some kind of credit


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

Jax08 said:


> Thanks! I've been doing alot of research on mast cells the last couple of weeks and I keep finding all the subscription sites too!
> 
> btw...I have Adobe Writer so can export the pdfs to a Word doc for you.


Jax, I have all sorts of info, and know a bit about this because Indy had one. I'll catch up with all the mast cell stuff you posted later tonight.....I'm sorry to hear that you are dealing with this. There is some Indy info in the sticky here - I would start on tagamet asap.


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

ugavet2012 said:


> .... I have had human doctors who are VERY successful tell me they are jealous of me. Gee maybe I should tell them that just *can't* be true! silly them, what ARE they thinking???!! LOL "But Dr. you are so much more knowledgeable and successful than me right now!"
> 
> My own mother is a very successful (and intelligent) software engineer who makes over $100,000 a year and *she* is jealous of me. .


Are you for real????


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

LisaT said:


> Are you for real????


Why is this so hard for anyone to believe? I have more examples if you'd like them. My derm actually told me that she worked with a surgeon at Harvard who told her he applied to vet school 3 times and couldn't get in....gave up and became a surgeon at Harvard  He told her one of the reasons he became a surgeon was it was the next closest thing to being a DVM. Please give up on this. You are starting to quote bits and pieces of conversations and making it look like I said something I definitely did not (which may be the whole point.......).


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

ugavet2012 said:


> You're right. And the fact that apparently Tim originally believed that tumor=cancer=malignant makes the fact that he tried to say I misinterpreted the numbers even more nonsensical. Because according to his train of thought, cancer is all malignant so why should I have needed to clarify?


Nonsensical? Right or wrong, his train of thought is backed up by a lot of English language reference material.

Webster's defines cancer as, "a *malignant* tumor of potentially unlimited growth that expands locally by invasion and systemically by metastasis"

One site says according to the Oxford English Dictionary the definition of cancer is "Any of various _*malignant*_ neoplasms characterized by the proliferation of anaplastic cells that tend to invade surrounding tissue and metastasize to new body sites."

"A complex set of diseases which involve *malignant* tumors capable of spreading. Can be systemic, such as leukemias, or organ specific, such as breast, kidney or lung cancer. Tumors grow in a manner uncoordinated with normal tissues and destroy healthy tissue."

"*Benign: Not cancer.* Not malignant. A benign tumor does not invade surrounding tissue or spread to other parts of the body. A benign tumor may grow but it stays put (in the same place)."

Cancer - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Cancer, Cancer Terminology, Medical Terms
Benign definition - Cancer Information (Cancers, Symptoms, Treatment) on MedicineNet.com


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

arycrest said:


> Nonsensical? Right or wrong, his train of thought is backed up by a lot of English language reference material.
> 
> Webster's defines cancer as, "a *malignant* tumor of potentially unlimited growth that expands locally by invasion and systemically by metastasis"
> 
> ...


Dear God, I might as well give up school now because apparently to some lay people on this board everything they are teaching us is baloney  To think.....I am paying $14,000 a year for stuff I could just Google. For example, you have a benign form of an osteosarcoma....it's called an osteoma. It's still cancer. You can have an adenoma, like a thyroid adenoma (vs. an adenocarcinoma) but that is still cancer even though it's benign.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

arycrest said:


> Nonsensical? Right or wrong, his train of thought is backed up by a lot of English language reference material.


For the purposes of understanding the articles posted: 

Tumors - can be malignant or benign
26% incidence of mammary tumors in unaltered females. Around 50% of those are malignant.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

I have my doubts that this will be taken with an open mind, or in the manner in which it is intended, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

ugavet,
You have every right to be proud of what you have accomplished. You certainly should be. And it is clear that you are passionate and dedicated to your future profession, which should also be applauded. With youth and passion comes impetuousness and the desire to always prove oneself correct and convert others to a cause, as we see in this thread, but even that is understandable. We've all been guilty of it at some point I'm sure.

But one small piece of advice I will give, which will make a better student and also a better vet in the future, is to slow down and really pay attention. Especially when it comes to reading and interpreting scientific data and papers, because the most dangerous approach possible is to be looking for information to prove your point rather thoroughly reading and taking time to truly digest and comprehend the information in an objective manner.

I'll use the Norwegian article that you posted as an example of this.

You posted an article which says:



ugavet2012 said:


> The crude incidence of malignant mammary tumours in female dogs of any breed was 53.3%. The highest relative risk ratio of mammary tumours was found in boxers, cocker spaniels, English springer spaniels and dachshunds. The mean age of histologically diagnosed mammary tumours was 7.9 years in boxers and 7.8 years in springer spaniels, compared with 8.8 years in all other breeds. In the four Norwegian counties from 1992 to 1997, the population-based incidence rates (for all ages) of malignant mammary tumours per 1000 female dogs per year were 35.47 in boxers, 3.87 in Bernese mountain dogs and 17.69 in bichon frisé. Mammary cancer is the most common tumour in female dogs in Norway, and represents a population of almost entirely reproductively intact females. The age-specific incidence rates for mammary cancer vary considerably among the three breeds that were studied in detail.


This article clearly states that 53.3% of the tumors were malignant. Not that 53.3% of the dogs had mammary tumors, malignant or otherwise. But one has to read it carefully to see that. Just skimming through, especially if looking for something to back up a position, it could easily be misinterpreted, as you apparently did since your comment about the article was:



ugavet2012 said:


> I think the fact that the incidence of mammary tumors is 53.3% speaks for itself. who cares about statistics for each heat cycle when you have numbers like that? Don't try to tell me that's not significant, that number alone is enough to make me spay.


You then went on to question Tim about where he got the boxer data, when it came from the article you posted, and later said that you were in a hurry and didn't really read it, which was obvious from your posts.

I'm not saying this to pick on you, but to sincerely suggest that you curb the enthusiasm and desire to always be right a bit in favor of really learning. Approaching anything only looking for validation is never a good thing, but this is especially important when it comes to scientific studies because the way they are written is always very open to misinterpretation if one doesn't read carefully, and it is tremendously dangerous to approach them in that manner. Thorough reading and understanding before forming opinions or making decisions based on studies is especially important for a person who will one day be considered and "expert" that others will rely on for guidance about very personal decisions.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

ugavet2012 said:


> Dear God, I might as well give up school now because apparently to some lay people on this board everything they are teaching us is baloney  To think.....I am paying $14,000 a year for stuff I could just Google. For example, you have a benign form of an osteosarcoma....it's called an osteoma. It's still cancer. You can have an adenoma, like a thyroid adenoma (vs. an adenocarcinoma) but that is still cancer even though it's benign.


 It is scary what they are teaching you there. Or maybe that you are not a very good student. Osteoma is NOT a cancer, adenoma is NOT a cancer. Open your medical terminology book for a change.

I still think this poster is a troll.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Chris Wild said:


> I have my doubts that this will be taken with an open mind, or in the manner in which it is intended, but I'll give it a shot anyway.
> 
> ugavet,
> You have every right to be proud of what you have accomplished. You certainly should be. And it is clear that you are passionate and dedicated to your future profession, which should also be applauded. With youth and passion comes impetuousness and the desire to always prove oneself correct and convert others to a cause, as we see in this thread, but even that is understandable. We've all been guilty of it at some point I'm sure.
> ...


I understand what you are saying and I applaud you for trying to be more mature....but your post comes off as you patting me on the head while wistfully saying "ahhh so young and innocent..." I doubt I am as young as you think I am for one thing. For the next thing, I guess you missed it but I was in a hurry to type my post (not read that abstract) and left out a word. I think by several people now leaning on this mistake you are trying to cover up the facts.......that is a SUPER high rate, you can't argue that. My misstating something shouldn't change that, and I don't see why it's even a point to make. Everyone is missing the big picture. I never said I memorized the whole abstract, and when I read tim's post, I didn't ssee where he mentioned female boxers or mammary tumors so no, I didn't make that connection at first, which I think makes sense on my part as I made that other post a good while before he posted that. 

I am still waiting on my answer from the VIN oncologists......and if they say you are correct in your interpretation then I'll give you that credit and maybe think about correcting my professors (not sure what to do about the professors at all the other schools who are also teaching this....) But like I said, you can believe whatever you want certainly, but whatever their interpretation is, is what I am going to go with until someone proves other wise.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

GSD07 said:


> It is scary what they are teaching you there. Or maybe that you are not a very good student. Osteoma is NOT a cancer, adenoma is NOT a cancer. Open your medical terminology book for a change.
> 
> I still think this poster is a troll.



I actually have close to a 4.0........but anyway........this is straight from my notes (that were not typed by me but by the professor): 

Benign: a benign neoplasm is one that will always stay localized to the site where it developed. 
Malignant: a malignant neoplasm........blah blah blah...

The professor commonly used cancer in place of neoplasm. It is *very* common to say "mammary cancer" in place of "mammary neoplasm" or any other example you can think of. 

I also think you should look up the definition of a troll. I am coming here to present information........you came here from the very beginning to bait me. Which of us appears to be more of a troll?


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

ugavet2012 said:


> I actually have close to a 4.0........but anyway........this is straight from my notes (that were not typed by me but by the professor):
> 
> Benign: a benign neoplasm is one that will always stay localized to the site where it developed.
> Malignant: a malignant neoplasm........blah blah blah...
> ...


 Your professor is right, of course. Neoplasm is not cancer. Cancer is a malignant neoplasm. 

4.0 for such knowledge, wow...blah, blah, indeed.

Your arrogance is amusing. Ok, I don't feed the troll anymore.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

ugavet2012 said:


> Dear God, I might as well give up school now because apparently to some lay people on this board everything they are teaching us is baloney  To think.....I am paying $14,000 a year for stuff I could just Google. For example, you have a benign form of an osteosarcoma....it's called an osteoma. It's still cancer. You can have an adenoma, like a thyroid adenoma (vs. an adenocarcinoma) but that is still cancer even though it's benign.


Good grief, take a chill pill ... no one has said your education is bologna. You made sarcastic remarks about Tim's comments and I merely pointed out that he's not alone and I quoted some reference sites that say the exact same thing he did.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

ugavet2012 said:


> you are trying to cover up the facts.......that is a SUPER high rate, you can't argue that.


I give up.

But I will say that I can't argue for or against 53.3% of tumors being malignant being a "SUPER high rate" without knowing what that 53.3% is a percentage of. Whether it's a meaningful statistic depends on how many tumors there are of which 53.3% are malignant. The actual population incidence posted in that same article aren't anything I would consider to be a "SUPER high rate". :shrug:


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

GSD07 said:


> Your professor is right, of course. Neoplasm is not cancer. Cancer is a malignant neoplasm.
> 
> 4.0 for such knowledge, wow...blah, blah, indeed.
> 
> Your arrogance is amusing. Ok, I don't feed the troll anymore.


good grief....once again. I mentioned I had a pretty good GPA b/c you implied I was not a good student. Excuse me for proving you wrong.......I have seen that is not allowed here. Please do not state incorrect info if you don't want to be corrected, it's pretty simple really. 
I didn't feel like typing everything out especially since no one will read it anyway , so sue me. If you are that interested in what the rest of my notes said (which I doubt, you are just baiting once again), I can send them to you. 

My professor (well several of them) use neoplasm and cancer interchangeably. YOu can indeed have a benign neoplasm.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Chris Wild said:


> I give up.


When I hear back from the Oncologists, will that be credible enough for you, regardless of if it's what you want to hear?


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

It has nothing to do with what I want to hear. I have simply stated that one cannot determine if 53.3% of X is a big deal or not without knowing what X is. Obviously you either disagree or don't understand my point. I don't really care what is the case, but I will abide by my opinion that without knowing the value of X, no conclusions can be drawn regarding if it's a "SUPER high rate" or not.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

<<putting on Admin hat>>

Everyone needs to calm down a bit and knock off the comments like "troll" and such. I'm not going to issue any warnings or anything because both sides have pretty well been equally guilty in tossing around the snarky comments and nothing has really gotten out of hand. But lets keep it that way and not let this degenerate into personal attacks as there is a lot of good information here for people to mull over.

Thanks,
Admin

<<off with Admin hat.. back to normal poster>>


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Chris Wild said:


> It has nothing to do with what I want to hear. I have simply stated that one cannot determine if 53.3% of X is a big deal or not without knowing what X is. Obviously you either disagree or don't understand my point. I don't really care what is the case, but I will abide by my opinion that without knowing the value of X, no conclusions can be drawn regarding if it's a "SUPER high rate" or not.


I understand you. And I'm going to once again cite this resource: 
Canine Mammary Carcinoma

I cannot get any of the sources themselves to open, but I would certainly hope you don't think those numbers in the first 2 sentences were pulled out of thin air. The third sentence once again brings up the 53% malignancy rate. 

I *agree* that it still doesn't say (at least not in the first paragraph) what the overall rate of dogs getting tumors is vs. those that don't get them.......but I think we can agree it's most likely much higher than some tiny percentage that wouldn't be worth worrying about, say 2% or something. Skin tumors are extremely common for comparisons sake. How many of us know dogs that have had some sort of tumor (benign or malignant)?

I'm not going to post anymore until I hear back from the Oncologists and then I'm done. It's not worth my time to try to explain myself (when I shouldn't need to) to people who A. don't bother to read or understand my posts and B. have come here simply to bait me, and frankly I hate myself for allowing it to happen because I am totally not like that in real life.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Pupresq and Lisa - I moved my post to the other forum to not hi-jack this thread. when you find the info could you PM me or just post on the other GSD forum?

Thanks!!!! And Lisa! I'll pick up the Tagamet and more benadryl tomorrow.



pupresq said:


> For anyone affiliated with a University, you can use a resource like Science Citation Index to look for relevant papers but once you find them, you can't always put them here and you can't link to them. You can give the citations and people can go to their local university library and look them up but people seem to want a quicker fix than that. I will keep trying though.
> 
> Michelle - do you have access to the journals you need for your Mast Cell research? If not, is there anything you need? I'd be happy to download stuff for you and email it to you as a PDF. It's possible I can even find some old research I did when my Golden had a mast cell tumor in my archives. We've changed computer since then though, so that may be a longshot.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

That is a very good article with lots of excellent info, but again I don't think one can really interpret the data without knowing the bottom line.

Without that data how do we know it's not a tiny percentage that isn't worth worrying about? The highest population incidence listed in the Norwegian study was 3.5%, and that for boxers, a breed known to be more prone to tumors than most others. The other breeds studied came out to a less than 2% population incidence.

And those numbers listed in an actual scientific study are very, very different than the "1 in 4" that have been mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

Sorry, but I can't agree or disagree regarding it's significance without knowing that value of X. And even if it is significant, which it may very well be, I do not think mammary cancer risks should be the only factor taken into consideration regarding spay/neuter decisions as there are many, many other factors that also should be considered as well, some of which would point to a different decision entirely if taken in isolation.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Chris Wild said:


> That is a very good article with lots of excellent info, but again I don't think one can really interpret the data without knowing the bottom line.
> 
> Without that data how do we know it's not a tiny percentage that isn't worth worrying about? The highest population incidence listed in the Norwegian study was 3.5%, and that for boxers, a breed known to be more prone to tumors than most others. The other breeds tested came out to a less than 2% population incidence.
> 
> Sorry, but I can't agree or disagree regarding it's significance without knowing that value of X. And even if it is significant, which it may very well be, I do not think mammary cancer risks should be the only factor taken into consideration regarding spay/neuter decisions as there are many, many other factors that also should be considered as well, some of which would point to a different decision entirely if taken in isolation.


Ok I lied and will post 1 more time to agree with you...at least for the last paragraph, which is why I am trying to get to the bottom of this (which probably won't happen until Monday since most people don't work weekends). I also believe it is important for myself to know the *true* facts since I'll be helping people make these decisions. Just from my experience working in numerous different clinics, I have seen many older female dogs with mammary tumors.....and many, many more with some sort of skin tumor. There are probably a TON more out there that belong to owners who don't take care of their dogs well and just don't notice, so the incidence of tumors is most likely much higher than what we have on record too. 

There is also the risk of pyometra......which I've also seen many of. The absolutely only way to avoid that is spaying and there's really no way that I"m aware of (of what I know of the disease) to decrease your dog's chances of getting it, it just happens sometimes. I would not want to put my dog through that just because there is a small percentage (in some breeds) of getting hemangiosarcoma.....which I would like to see a study for that compares those spayed at different ages. 

I have absolutely NO issue with good breeders like yourself having intact dogs.....but you are not in the majority  If I know someone wants to breed their dog just because "she's pretty and likes kids" for instance, I will be pushing spaying without a backwards glance. A person can tell me I don't have that dog's best interest in mind because I'm not presenting both sides, but I beg to differ on that, and it's my right to have that opinion.


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

Some great posts Chris, Tim, etc! Pup and Jean, I can't agree more with being careful with the information we disseminate and how, but sure do wish there were more honesty on this topic in the larger picture. 

The problem with that "1 in 4" number is that, at this point, it's part of the culture, and everyone is referring to papers that refer to other papers that refer to that numbers. Vets in VIN are very likely to agree tooan since that is what they were taught in school too. That's why I tried really hard to find that paper, but only narrowed down the citation. I wanted to look at the wording, I wanted to look at the sample size, etc. 
.
Jax, I'll be over on the other board a bit later - guess that was that stuff you were looking for when you were posting those good, but somewhat random  , links. I'm sorry you are dealing with this


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

It was part of it. But mostly really was looking for salmon oil/vit E info for cats. LOL I just got lucky on that one article about diets, supplements and cancer.

Here is an interesting article while the topic is cancer.

Is the cure for cancer found in canines? | - MLive.com


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

That's pretty cool - sorry to hear the Clumber Spaniels have quite a bit of hemangiosarcoma too


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Very interesting. I didn't know about that research, and close to home too. Thanks for sharing. I'll have to give them a call and see if they'd like some DNA from Kaiser for their research, though I'm not sure if the type of cancer he had would be of interest to them. And so sorry to hear about what you're going through right now.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I posted this study a few months back(no replies but the info was at least given exposure), surprised the Van Andel institute would fund such a study, I hope it was worthwhile!
http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...research-institute-launches-new-canine-c.html


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

I was looking up something cancer related, and ran across this on statistics:

http://www.vetcontact.com/dermatology/art.php?a=1733&t=&f=18


(Jane, I remember when you posted that!)


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Chris Wild said:


> Without that data how do we know it's not a tiny percentage that isn't worth worrying about? The highest population incidence listed in the Norwegian study was 3.5%, and that for boxers, a breed known to be more prone to tumors than most others. The other breeds studied came out to a less than 2% population incidence.
> 
> And those numbers listed in an actual scientific study are very, very different than the "1 in 4" that have been mentioned elsewhere in the thread.
> 
> Sorry, but I can't agree or disagree regarding it's significance without knowing that value of X. And even if it is significant, which it may very well be, I do not think mammary cancer risks should be the only factor taken into consideration regarding spay/neuter decisions as there are many, many other factors that also should be considered as well, some of which would point to a different decision entirely if taken in isolation.


That study doesn't offer a lot of information on the to spay or not to spay debate because the overall rates include both altered and unaltered animals. The one in four rates come from studies looking specifically at intact (or I think later spayed) bitches. Those are the studies that are really the most relevant here. The 53% malignancy rate is consistent with what other studies have found, but only becomes relevant once a dog _has_ mammary tumors. 

And I agree about their being multiple factors to consider (pro and con both).

To get back to the original topic of the thread - does anyone have the Dog World article? Can you post their references and their exact statement about the 26%? Maybe we can start with that.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

LisaT said:


> I was looking up something cancer related, and ran across this on statistics:
> 
> http://www.vetcontact.com/dermatology/art.php?a=1733&t=&f=18


I can see how that would be a problem with studies that use ordinal ratings like that. In my field pseudo replication is the big problem. 

I would think in the case of mammary cancer and alteration the stats would be pretty clean since it's all binary variables - tumors or no tumors, malignancy or no malignancy, spayed or not spayed. The only fuzzy one is if it wants to take into account when they were spayed in a more complex way that by using some cut off date (first heat, second heat etc).


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *ugavet2012*
> You can have benign tumors obviously--but that is still cancer.


Is the world of veterinary medicine really so different? Years ago I was diagnosed with a 'micro invasive malignancy'. Additional testing established it was a non-invasive malignancy. The oncologist stated that it wasn't cancer. Now, I'd previously thought that tumors generally fell into 2 categories, benign=non-cancerous & malignant=cancerous. He stated that was an extremely common misunderstanding among the general population. According to him, non-invasive malignancies aren't considered cancers & that some would remain non-invasive while others would progress to cancer. It's a profound difference which significantly impacts both treatments & prognoses. He actually apologized & was clearly upset when he delivered the initial diagnosis of 'micro-invasive malignancy' whereas he was smiling, relieved & upbeat when he told me it turned out to be a non-invasive malignancy, ie not cancer.

Sooo, is it that different in dogs (or vet medicine in general)? In vet medicine, is every malignancy considered a cancer? Are even benign tumors considered cancers? IF it's that different, then why?

My vet who retired never pushed spay/neuter & was opposed to early spay neuter. My current vets are supportive of my decision to keep Djibouti intact. In fact one vet I use keeps his males intact b/c he's convinced it's healthier. He previously had Great Danes that lived to be 12. He currently has Goldens, a breed prone to various cancers.

I don't have any intact females. IF I get an intact female in the future I'm torn as to whether I'll spay or not. I'd previously thought I'd spay ~2yrs old, but I'm increasingly opposed to it unless there's a compelling reason to do so. I might opt for a hysterectomy that left the ovaries, but I'd be concerned that pack dynamics might get seriously wonky with multiple intact males & females. *shrug*I prefer males so that might be the solution...


----------



## Wildtim (Dec 13, 2001)

LisaT said:


> Some great posts Chris, Tim, etc! Pup and Jean, I can't agree more with being careful with the information we disseminate and how, but sure do wish there were more honesty on this topic in the larger picture.
> 
> The problem with that "1 in 4" number is that, at this point, it's part of the culture, and everyone is referring to papers that refer to other papers that refer to that numbers. Vets in VIN are very likely to agree tooan since that is what they were taught in school too. That's why I tried really hard to find that paper, but only narrowed down the citation. I wanted to look at the wording, I wanted to look at the sample size, etc.
> .


Hopefully someone will be able to find a source for this. Of course maybe not. There have in the past been studies done that cited another study and the study cited cited the first study as its source. Then a third sutdy referenced the first two and all of a sudden a "fact" was created out of thin air. This happened in the smoking studies and also in some pesticide studies, seems to be more common when there is a large pool of government funding on the line......

However it also sometimes when someone cites something incorrectly in an otherwise well designed paper or states something incorrectly that then gets cited or picked up by the media. 

Heck the whole idea of spinach being especially good for you happened because the media picked up a study in which the publisher had misplaced a decimal. This myth took a generation and more to be dispelled much to the horror of many many children forced to eat boiled spinach for supper. It even spawned a popular comic strip, cartoon and movie character.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

I am not going to go any further than this: Spay if you want, you don't have to if you don't want to.


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

Not the Schneider, but one published just a year later, with an author in common. http://vet.sagepub.com/content/7/4/289.full.pdf The vocabulary is a bit thick....wish I had time to wade through it, but I'll post it here in case anyone is interested in it.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

ugavet2012- I think you need to stop getting mad and upset because people here don't agree with you. The only immature thing here is that you keep thinking people are getting jealous of you. Thats not true. Just admit you are wrong. No need to brag about other vets, your mother being jealous of you. You seem to be the immature one here. Quit pointing fingers, and thinking everyone else is wrong, and you are the only right one and thinking everyone is jealous of you and your success. No one is perfect.

I was planning on becoming a vet, but I decided not to pursue it because I did not want to have major debt and having to put an animal down. 
And yes, when "vet" is considered a major. When people asked me what my major was and I said vet, they knew it met being a veterinarian, there are many types of veterinarian medicine. When someone says "vet" is their major, it basically is a general statement that want to major in Veterinarian Medicine of some sort.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

RubyTuesday said:


> Is the world of veterinary medicine really so different? Years ago I was diagnosed with a 'micro invasive malignancy'. Additional testing established it was a non-invasive malignancy. The oncologist stated that it wasn't cancer. Now, I'd previously thought that tumors generally fell into 2 categories, benign=non-cancerous & malignant=cancerous. He stated that was an extremely common misunderstanding among the general population. According to him, non-invasive malignancies aren't considered cancers & that some would remain non-invasive while others would progress to cancer. It's a profound difference which significantly impacts both treatments & prognoses. He actually apologized & was clearly upset when he delivered the initial diagnosis of 'micro-invasive malignancy' whereas he was smiling, relieved & upbeat when he told me it turned out to be a non-invasive malignancy, ie not cancer.
> 
> Sooo, is it that different in dogs (or vet medicine in general)? In vet medicine, is every malignancy considered a cancer? Are even benign tumors considered cancers? IF it's that different, then why?
> 
> ...


Everything I have been taught, read, etc. states that yes, every malignancy is cancer. In fact your paragraph about what your doctor told you kind of doesn't make sense to me based on that. Not to mention now you are arguing against everyone on here that Googled the word malignancy that they are wrong. But I"m not a human doctor, have no desire to be one, and can't tell you what they learn. 



Jessiewessie99 said:


> ugavet2012- I think you need to stop getting mad and upset because people here don't agree with you. The only immature thing here is that you keep thinking people are getting jealous of you. Thats not true. Just admit you are wrong. No need to brag about other vets, your mother being jealous of you. You seem to be the immature one here. Quit pointing fingers, and thinking everyone else is wrong, and you are the only right one and thinking everyone is jealous of you and your success. No one is perfect.
> 
> I was planning on becoming a vet, but I decided not to pursue it because I did not want to have major debt and having to put an animal down.
> And yes, when "vet" is considered a major. When people asked me what my major was and I said vet, they knew it met being a veterinarian, there are many types of veterinarian medicine. When someone says "vet" is their major, it basically is a general statement that want to major in Veterinarian Medicine of some sort.


#1, you can stop taking something I said so far out of context and running with it way out into left field. I'm NOT admitting I am wrong because I haven't been proven wrong. Someone saying they interpret something differently (with nothing to back that up) is not proving anything. I'm feeling some bias here. I'm not mad that people don't agree with me, I'm mad that people are absolutely not reading my posts but are picking and choosing things out of my posts to quote and taking them out of context. I *never* "bragged" that my "Mom was jealous of me," I was stating a fact that she has made very clear to me. Now you can go on thinking that I made that up and no one in this world has any reason to be jealous of me or anyone else for that matter, that's fine, you don't know me and I could be a pathological liar, but that doesn't make you correct. I think it's incredibly silly to say that just because a certain person is oh-so-successful this means that can't possibly be jealous of another person or someone else's success. I'm jealous of people who get to train dogs for a living. It's very likely that I'll end up more successful than the majority of dog trainers.......that doesn't make me *less* jealous. I'm jealous of one of my friends who coaches a youth cheerleading squad. She gets paid peanuts for this and it didn't require any fancy specialized education, by your definition that means my jealousy is irrational. 
I'm going to assume I have been around many, many more vet students/vets/pre-vet (undergrad) students than you (which I think is a fair assumption). I have never, ever heard one refer to their major in undergrad as "vet," they say they are majoring in pre-vet sciences....or something else since the majority of colleges do not have "pre-vet" as a major, it's usually something like animal science (which is what my BS is in). You don't hear people in undergrad saying "I'm majoring in pharmacy....or medicine...or law, etc.," they say "I'm pre-law, pre-med, pre-pharmacy" until they have actually been admitted into those schools. You can go on having your own opinion about this and believing it's correct, but I have the right to my own as well and have a number of students behind me to back this up. If you would like to debate this over on SDN, feel free, but you'll be outnumbered.  Not to mention you don't "major in veterinary medicine of some sort" you go to vet school and get a general DVM. Some schools track and people can choose to go the large/small/mixed animal routes, research, public health, etc., but we all still graduate with the exact same DVM, and I can track small animal and decide right after I graduate that I want to work with horses instead. I think this is kind of like me trying to argue with my accountant over my taxes....I'd most likely be wrong 



Chris Wild said:


> People have to be careful when reading percentages in statistics.
> 
> The research is not saying they have a "26% chance of mammary cancer". What it is saying is that the *increased risk* is 26%. That is a HUGE difference.
> 
> ...


So far, everything I am getting on VIN from the oncologists states that the 1 in 4 statistic is correct (and you all need to realize that most, if not all, of specialists have done their own research studies while in residency, so whether you like it or not, they know how to interpret studies). I'm still trying to get a hold of the Schneider study from 1969. I didn't notice it before, but what exactly do you have to back up what you are claiming, as in, why should I believe your interpretation? Until proven otherwise, I am going to err on the side of caution and go with the experts on this who have the education and experience to back up what they are saying over a lay person on the internet. Would I rather tell people that based on what someone on the internet told me, mammary tumors are very uncommon and they shouldn't worry about them as reason to get their dog spayed, or that the experts state that these are the statistics and it's a good reason to spay their dog? I'll go with the latter if someone asks, and I think it's arrogant at best to believe I should go with the former. So what if it turns out one day that Chris is correct........what harm was done? By spaying my patients I still decreased their risk of mammary tumors, no matter how small that number may be; I would think we could all agree on that. There are many, many other good reasons to spay a dog (like pyometra that I stated before, which used to be *extremely *common before spaying became more popular). 
I realize some of you have met bad vets, and I have too. That doesn't mean you should assume they are all morons and know nothing about interpreting statistics or anything else, and are just walking around like robots repeating what someone else has told them. I am consistently amazed at the intelligence of some of the vets and vet students I have met. I don't decide one day that all human doctors are idiots and begin questioning everything they say because I met a couple of bad ones, that's just silly, and I certainly don't go around implying that I know better than them on a regular basis. 
I want to point out that there are a few people saying that I shouldn't just believe what I am taught and should research it for myself. Do you realize how impossible that would be? Do you really expect me to spends HOURS researching every single statistic, treatment protocol, etc. that I learn? If you expect that, you don't realize that vet school is like a full time (and more) job.


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

ugavet2012 said:


> Everything I have been taught, read, etc. states that yes, every malignancy is cancer. In fact your paragraph about what your doctor told you kind of doesn't make sense to me based on that.


Please brush up on those reading skills  She is stating that some doctors also referred to cancers in the way that you are describing. She was actually agreeing with you. 



> I'm NOT admitting I am wrong because I haven't been proven wrong.


Lots of things were misinterpreted by you (including math statements), but that's not really the point. To get into and through vet shool, defiance and ego might help quite a bit, but those same properties are exactly what combine to make bad vets. We've seen a lot of animals harmed by that type of ego and dogma. 




> I'm feeling some bias here. I'm not mad that people don't agree with me, I'm mad that people are absolutely not reading my posts but are picking and choosing things out of my posts to quote and taking them out of context. I *never* "bragged" that my "Mom was jealous of me," I was stating a fact that she has made very clear to me.


Btw, there is a fine line between bragging and stating how jealous your mom is of you. Earlier I quoted your own words on that subject and it upset you. It was irrelevant to the conversation, so any statement in that area, to some, is considered a brag. Even the continued rant above about jealousy just has me questioning a whole lot of things that are not appropriate for this thread.

There is no bias here (that's a cop-out btw), it is a reaction to how you are posting on the board. It makes a number of us cringe, because we hear those attitudes, and we don't want to think that we might unknowingly walk into a vet office where the vet is thinking in that way. You have landed in a spot where there are some pretty sophisticated dog owners here - a number of them at least as smart as you, a number of them know a whole lot more than you do about some things at this point. You can't demand respect without earning it and also giving it.

As for the 1 in 4 statistic - do your VIN vets have the copy of the study where the numbers came from? That was the whole point here - most of us like to learn things for ourselves and read it and interpret it. Most of us regulars here work with our vets, rather than accept blindly what they tell us.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

UGAVet,

This is just something for you to think about, the difference between breeders, other breed fanciers, and veterinarians. 

Most of the vets have us hands down on education specific to animal husbandry. They have studied for four or six years, about diseases, anatomy, vaccines, nutrician, management, therapies, and a whole spectrum of things. What's more, they are not just studying about dogs, but cats, lizards, cattle, horses, birds, and fish. It is daunting how much they must have studied. 

And yet, Jack of all trades, master of none. 

Unless you go to a vet who is certified as a nutricianist, you will have a vet that basically will give you better advice than the sales representative, maybe. There is no way that a vet would be able to know the best foods for over 100 breeds of dogs, the many breeds of cats, fish, rats, gerbils, horses, on top of everything else they need to know and I think you should be getting the picture. 

We laymen can get a whole lot of information from the internet, read studies etc. Those of us who have been serious students of the breed for many years will have personal experience, second hand experience, as well as what we read and all of this is specific to one spieces and one breed within that spiecies. 

Many of us have studied things like nutrician and have seen what works and what does not. On reproductive and other issues as well. There may be some things that we know more of than veterinarians. 

Many of us that breed, have a special relationship with our vets. It includes things like mutual respect and trust. It is a partnership, not a vet way up there, and me way down here. 

I am not dissing the profession, I need them almost as much as they need me. But if I ever came across a vet that poo poo'd information, rigidly stuck with what is the current or previous thinking, would not bother or consider something, or gave the impression that I would not be capable of understanding the information, I would be so gone. 

You can be the most knowledgeable vet with many specialties, but without customers your done. The best way to lose customers is to hold onto the attitude, we are the vets, we went to school, we know.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

LisaT said:


> Please brush up on those reading skills  She is stating that some doctors also referred to cancers in the way that you are describing. She was actually agreeing with you.


To quote yourself, I believe I'm not the one with the reading skills problem here, this is what she wrote: 

"Is the world of veterinary medicine really so different? Years ago I was diagnosed with a 'micro invasive malignancy'. Additional testing established it was a non-invasive malignancy. The oncologist stated that it wasn't cancer. Now, I'd previously thought that tumors generally fell into 2 categories, benign=non-cancerous & malignant=cancerous. He stated that was an extremely common misunderstanding among the general population. According to him, non-invasive malignancies aren't considered cancers & that some would remain non-invasive while others would progress to cancer. It's a profound difference which significantly impacts both treatments & prognoses. He actually apologized & was clearly upset when he delivered the initial diagnosis of 'micro-invasive malignancy' whereas he was smiling, relieved & upbeat when he told me it turned out to be a non-invasive malignancy, ie not cancer.

Sooo, is it that different in dogs (or vet medicine in general)? In vet medicine, is every malignancy considered a cancer? Are even benign tumors considered cancers? IF it's that different, then why?"

She's saying that her doctor told her that her "non-invasive malignancy" WAS NOT cancer. This was never mentioned by any one previously, how would she be agreeing with me? I never mentioned that I thought anything malignant wasn't cancer, I'm actually on the other side of that fence, so please, you'll need to explain your thought process to me because she is asking if we classify every malignancy as cancer.....which was never the original argument? I think you need to step back and really read what she wrote, maybe look up some terms, etc. 



LisaT said:


> Lots of things were misinterpreted by you (including math statements), but that's not really the point. To get into and through vet shool, defiance and ego might help quite a bit, but those same properties are exactly what combine to make bad vets. We've seen a lot of animals harmed by that type of ego and dogma.


I think several people here need to look up the word "math" LOL because mistyping or misstating isn't in the math that I learned. Other than Chris's first post, I don't believe any math at all was done in this whole thread....certainly not in any of my posts. So I'm failing to see why this keeps getting mentioned. Again, I think a few of you are ganging up together and just running with something one of the others said instead of reading and thinking for yourself (which seems a bit hypocritical really). 
I don't think you should assume you know what gets someone through vet school either, since I can assure you there are plenty who have egos the size of houses that graduate. 




LisaT said:


> Btw, there is a fine line between bragging and stating how jealous your mom is of you. Earlier I quoted your own words on that subject and it upset you. It was irrelevant to the conversation, so any statement in that area, to some, is considered a brag. Even the continued rant above about jealousy just has me questioning a whole lot of things that are not appropriate for this thread.
> 
> There is no bias here (that's a cop-out btw), it is a reaction to how you are posting on the board. It makes a number of us cringe, because we hear those attitudes, and we don't want to think that we might unknowingly walk into a vet office where the vet is thinking in that way. You have landed in a spot where there are some pretty sophisticated dog owners here - a number of them at least as smart as you, a number of them know a whole lot more than you do about some things at this point. You can't demand respect without earning it and also giving it.
> 
> As for the 1 in 4 statistic - do your VIN vets have the copy of the study where the numbers came from? That was the whole point here - most of us like to learn things for ourselves and read it and interpret it. Most of us regulars here work with our vets, rather than accept blindly what they tell us.


Yeah....once again, if you had actually read through the whole conversation instead of just the stuff you wanted to read, you'll see that is was VERY relevant. I would have never mentioned it if it wasn't. Again, it was NOT bragging and I can see it's a lost cause to actually get you to see that. And I never said my mom was "so" jealous of me, now you're just trying to take it out of context yet again, which seems to be a recurring problem. I simply thought it was extremely ridiculous at best for several people to start posting on here how it was impossible for some of the members to be jealous of anyone because they are PhDs...or whatever. (Which ironically, is one of the most irrelevant things I could find in this whole thread.) I couldn't care less if Karen Pryor herself was posting on here.....we are human and none of us are above being jealous of anyone for whatever reason (may that be looks, money, etc.), not even you 
Frankly, when there have been a few people now who can't pull themselves away from that topic and clearly got extremely upset by my comment........it just makes me wonder what the real reason is behind the outrage. It was a small thing in the context of this whole thread, build a bridge and get over it. 

My "rant" as you put it was because you clearly aren't getting my point and probably still won't, so I"m giving up with it. I have better things to do than try to explain every little detail to someone when they are going to believe what they want anyway. And yes there is a bias, when you have someone coming on here just to try & bait me, and then a few more people ganging up with them even when what they are saying makes no sense, well you define that for me then. If you will go back and look, I don't remember ever attacking someone's character on here like as been done to me. There was even someone implying & assuming that I had to work harder than everyone else to get into vet school and my "talents" must be elsewhere......I think that was totally uncalled for and I don't see what I did to deserve to be thrown under the bus like that, not to mention you know what they say about assuming...

I never implied I ever thought I was smarter than anyone else and I feel pretty certain there are plenty of people here "smarter" than me. I hate when people label someone as smart or not smart too just FYI because I think there are different definitions of what could be considered smart and we each have our own things we are good at. 

You're right, there may be someone on here that can recite every little tiny fact about parvo for example, more than 99% of vets could tell you. Does that mean they know more than a vet? Goodness, talk about arrogance. Being a vet is more about knowing everything about vaccines or which dog food is best or memorizing every little detail about 1000 different diseases. Please remember that. 

If you had actually read my whole post, you would see that I mentioned I had yet to get my hands on the Schneider study from 1969 with the original numbers.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

selzer said:


> UGAVet,
> 
> This is just something for you to think about, the difference between breeders, other breed fanciers, and veterinarians.
> 
> ...


And if you take the time to read what I just posted, you'll see that I agree with you on most parts. And I'm sorry, but just by reading through some of the other threads there is A LOT of misinformation being thrown around about nutrition, vaccinations......etc., etc. I don't think I need to go on, by people who feel certain they know what they are talking about. Anecdotal evidence does not equal facts.

Even so, I will be the first one to tell you that the good breeders on here know much more than me about that area, for one thing. I won't even pretend that much. 

Not to mention that if you want to bring up nutrition as an example, that is one of my special interest areas and I've done tons of my own reading, learning, and research on the subject and happen to think I know quite a bit more than "a sales representative." Please don't paint all vets (or future ones) with such a broad brush.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

ugavet2012 said:


> Goodness, talk about arrogance.


:wild:


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

GSD07 said:


> :wild:


LOL I'm glad to see you are consistent at least in your not adding an actual contribution to the thread (or actually making sense for that matter).


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

Please restrain yourself from any personal attacks towards me, dear future vet, otherwise please continue.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

GSD07 said:


> Please restrain yourself from any personal attacks towards me, dear future vet, otherwise please continue.


LOL a personal attack would be me saying "you're an idiot for posting that." I was stating a fact. Please restrain yourself from baiting me and coming across as a "troll" as I believe you put it before.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

We only have what we have experienced to paint with. 

30 years ago we took our x-stray puppy to the vet. pup was not eating and was throwing up and had a running stool. The vet said to feed it chicken soup. (This was way before Chicken Soup for the dog lovers whatever exited.) 

We got out a can of chicken soup and presented it to the dog. She mouthed it and refused it. 

A week later, we took her back. The dog was starving and sick. He said he would check her for worms but did not want to when she was so sick. So he gave her a shot to make her more active. I was 12 years old and said nothing, but questioned it in the car. My mother drove the dog to the other vet, who shook his head, and acted all frustrated. 

He checked her for worms which she had, and told us to keep her out of the garbage, and get her off of the generic food. He told us to feed her something that says 100% complete and balanced, and may have mentioned, the AAFCO. My parents went to Dads and Purina, and other than a bout of stomach cancer -- yep after she was spayed, she lived for fourteen years. 

She was one of the two dogs I have ever known to have cancer. Both were spayed. My parents' English setter was just put down about a year ago at fifteen. He had all his parts, and no testicular cancer, no bone cancer, no nothing. Just old age. 

I am keeping all of my dogs intact now. I can keep them separate so no unwanted litters. But I think that there is a whole lot more to the hormones than we give them credit for. I think that vets have used the politics of reducing the number of dogs in shelters to push spay/neuter on people. For this reason, anything that comes out of the AMVA is questionable in my opinon. They may be the only store on the block, but it does not mean we have to buy it. 

Veterinarians will believe what they are taught, the studies that have been cited for thirty or forty years. If you look at studies though, almost all of them could be skewed to come out with the answer that they were looking for. Statistics are just another tool, and we have to be careful when we put all our eggs in that basket. 

BTW, that first vet I mentioned, the first one, he is still alive, kicking, and practicing veterinary medicine. We guestimate his age in the nineties. We wonder there are still families in the county who have not lost pets due to him. 

At twelve years old, I knew I was getting some bad advice. I have gone to other vets and have gotten better advice. But I suspect that I believe way more than I should. I should be researching a whole lot more than I am.


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

ugavet2012 said:


> I don't think you should assume you know what gets someone through vet school either, since I can assure you there are plenty who have egos the size of houses that graduate.


Ummmm, I believe that was exactly part of what I said. Please, do check those reading comprehension skills, yet again 

Btw, posts have a 1,000 word count limit on them (including quoted material). I'm guessing that a couple of yours have gone over that.

And yes, you did insult GSD07, which is also against board rules, but so far the mods have allowed us a little latitude here. Please don't escalate.

We aren't getting your point, because you don't have one, other than citing some statistics that we can't seem to track down the original source for. Those stats may be entirely correct, but that sure is something that we would like to see.

I know that you didn't bother to read the abstract that you posted before and argued that it backed up your point. Did you bother to read the study from 1970 that I last posted? Interesting in there, one statistic is that the speutered dogs in a couple cohorts had higher carcinoma rates than the intact dogs. Also dogs that were bred *a lot* had significantly lowered rates also. Sure would be nice if you buckled down and started reading for facts, rather than being so concern about who is jealous of whom.


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

ugavet2012 said:


> ..... And I'm sorry, but just by reading through some of the other threads there is A LOT of misinformation being thrown around about nutrition, vaccinations......etc., etc. I don't think I need to go on, by people who feel certain they know what they are talking about. Anecdotal evidence does not equal facts......


And here is where your youth in terms of exposure (not age, but intellectual youth) is showing.

There's a lot of well read folks on this board, with knowledge based on current research. And no, anecdotal information is not ignored, it's used to help put the existing science together. There's a lot of that information that won't make it into vet school, for a variety of reasons, YOU have to seek out that information if you want to do right by the animals that you want to help. Blind faith will create dogmatic thinkers, and that in turn is dangerous for us and definitely our pets. If you want folks to treat what you say with respect, you gotta man up and provide some evidence. (p.s., it helps if you read the evidence first, too  )


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

UGAVet20120- I think you are reading what you want to read.My post was not biased. I was writing about what other people were talking about. You are blaming people for stuff you are doing. You can't just come on here and think everyone should respect you, and know you are right and we are wrong. You putting everyone below you. Based on what you have posted, you have shown very little respect for anyone.

I for one have always had my dogs fixed, all lived healthy lives. My parents always had their dogs fixed, all lived healthy lives.

If someone chooses not to spay or neuter their dogs, then thats their choice, and you have to respect it. There are many good reasons people chose to not spay and neuter their pets, as well as there are many good reasons people choose to spay and neuter their pets.

Maybe if start showing some respect to others who have posted here, maybe people won't think you are such a bad guy.

And bashing people on here is wrong, what goes around comes around.


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

ugavet2012 said:


> Being a vet is more about knowing everything about vaccines or which dog food is best or memorizing every little detail about 1000 different diseases. Please remember that.


So, unless someone actually wants to talk statistics and speutering...let me add this to ugavet2012.

For many on this board, you don't have to tell us what you've quoted above, that there is more to being a vet than facts and figures. We can do without the lectures from someone that has only been in vet school for a few years. You're still a pup in that regard  But rather than fight that, accept it, because that's what the learning process is all about.

We do have hundreds and hundreds of new members since the new year started, so right now the board is a mix and still reclaiming it's identity, but you will find lots of folks that you can learn from and discuss issues, including about nutrition.

So welcome to the board, do stay, keep an open mind. Staying on this board will only make you a better vet in the long run....it's all a learning process that should be embraced.


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

LisaT said:


> Ummmm, I believe that was exactly part of what I said. Please, do check those reading comprehension skills, yet again
> 
> Btw, posts have a 1,000 word count limit on them (including quoted material). I'm guessing that a couple of yours have gone over that.
> 
> ...


I don't need to "check them again" as I didn't do it the first time--didn't need to as I wasn't wrong, *you* were and you haven't acknowledged this which I'm pretty sure makes you a hypocrite at this point. 

I didn't know the 1000 word limit. I'll remember that but I don't typically count my words either. 

There is your bias showing. I have been personally insulted NUMEROUS times on this thread and have yet to see you stand up for me, even though I was not the one acting like a troll and baiting. Would you like me to quote all of the insults in one post for you? 

I'm not the one who continues to bring up the jealously thing and I'm not concerned with. I didn't read your link you posted because I've see that sort of thing before and it's not what this thread was originally about nor does it help us come to a conclusion about mammary cancer. I've said it, oh, about 3 times now that there are plenty of reasons other than cancer to spay a dog, and I've also said that there really aren't any health benefits to neutering. So I don't see what your argument is...? 



LisaT said:


> And here is where your youth in terms of exposure (not age, but intellectual youth) is showing.
> 
> There's a lot of well read folks on this board, with knowledge based on current research. And no, anecdotal information is not ignored, it's used to help put the existing science together.


I guarantee you I can find many people employed in the sciences (and have been for years, so I hope they have enough "intellectual" years for you) that will tell you ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT EQUAL FACTS. I never argued for ignoring it, but you can't assume because someone on an internet message board told you that their dog's cancer was cured because they switched to a raw diet that it's a fact. 



LisaT said:


> For many on this board, you don't have to tell us what you've quoted above, that there is more to being a vet than facts and figures. We can do without the lectures from someone that has only been in vet school for a few years. You're still a pup in that regard  But rather than fight that, accept it, because that's what the learning process is all about.


so if I'm "still a pup in that regard" what does that make you? Can you see how condescending that comes across?


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Wow, talk about a lot of pot/kettle name calling back and forth. It's time to close this thread. There is some good discussion in here, and after a downhill turn yesterday it got back on track a bit last night, but now is headed downhill again.

I know there are people researching to come up with actual scientific studies to support their viewpoints, and hopefully when those are located in sources viewable to the public the general topic will be revived and some good information dissemination and discussion can take place. But at this point there is absolutely no point in continuing this particular thread.

-Admin


----------

