[Orin Kerr, February 13, 2009 at 1:53pm] Trackbacks
Ginsburg Surgery Update:
Via the BLT:
  "The pancreatic cancer for which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery on February 5 has been determined as TNM Stage 1 by doctors at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. All lymph nodes proved negative for cancer and no metastasis was found. . .
  "Extraordinarily, the approximately 1 cm lesion revealed on a late January CAT scan, the discovery of which led to the February 5 surgery, proved benign. But in searching the entire pancreas Dr. Brennan identified a previously undetected single, even smaller, tumor which upon examination was found malignant. Justice Ginsburg was released from Memorial Sloan-Kettering today and is recuperating at home."
GD:
That sounds extraordinarily positive.
2.13.2009 1:56pm
Dave N (mail):
I want to take Justice Ginsburg to Las Vegas with me--or at least have her share her favorite numbers for the Lottery.
2.13.2009 2:00pm
Dave N (mail):
On a serious note, this does seem like extraordinarily good news for her and I wish her a speedy recovery.
2.13.2009 2:01pm
Alowishus Tishus:
Wonderful news; hopefully she got lucky and will have a lasting recovery.
2.13.2009 2:09pm
KeithK (mail):

I want to take Justice Ginsburg to Las Vegas with me--or at least have her share her favorite numbers for the Lottery.

Maybe. Or maybe she's used up all of her stock of luck on this escape. If so, then it was a good way to use it.

Regardless, I wish Justice Ginsburg a rapid and full recovery.
2.13.2009 2:09pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
I also wish her a rapid and full recovery. I want President Thompson to name her successor, not President Obama.
2.13.2009 2:10pm
Mr. Bingley (www):
Great news; I hope she makes a speedy and full recovery.
2.13.2009 2:11pm
Kedar Bhatia (mail) (www):
It wasn't luck, it was just really, really good healthcare. She's a 75 year-old Justice of the United States Supreme Court with a history of cancer. She was going to her physician as regularly as anyone in her position SHOULD be going.
2.13.2009 2:14pm
PatHMV (mail) (www):
Wow. Amazing news. It was miraculous enough, catching the initial tumor on that first scan. That the existence of the benign tumor is what led to the discovery of the even smaller malignant tumor is an incredible miracle. I pray she continues to make a swift and full recovery.
2.13.2009 2:15pm
Thoughtful (mail):
There's more than one way to do an abdominal CT. The kind you do for screening for colon cancer metastases and recurrences is different than the kind you do to work up suspected pancreatic cancer (neutral vs positive oral contrast; thinner sections; biphasic vs uniphasic technique). So it's not totally surprising that the small pancreatic malignancy was missed.

I have seen cases--they're probably not that rare--where you find one thing, work it up, turns out to be nothing but the workup discovers something else. It IS a reasonable question as to whether or not that's cost-effective, though obviously Justice Ginzburg thinks so in this case.

Certainly wonderful news for her. Fascinating case from an imaging perspective.
2.13.2009 2:24pm
DG:
Man, this seems like dodging a bullet.
2.13.2009 2:55pm
Not go good (mail):

Pancreatic ca staging

"5-year relative survival for pancreatic cancer
Stage IA 37%
Stage IB 21%"
2.13.2009 2:56pm
Philip Snyder (mail):
Where there is life there is hope: My cousin's wife lived 20 years after she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

Speedy recovery, Justice Ginsburg
2.13.2009 3:00pm
htom (mail):
That is about as well as non-magic can do. I hope she gets well soon.
2.13.2009 3:06pm
Sammy Finkelman (mail):
This is all very similiar to colon cancer, except that the equivalent of polyps in the pancreas are not ordinarily detectable. Even the growth termed cancerous was probably not an immediate danger, if indeed maybe a danger at all unless it got anotehr mutation or two. There is no really good diagnosis for cancer.
2.13.2009 4:07pm
J. Aldridge:
Great news for her. She will now be able to serve for at least the next 5 years, putting her replacement in Republican hands.
2.13.2009 5:35pm
ChrisTS (mail):
I'm very happy for Justice Ginsberg.

At the risk of seeming [unduly and unusually] severe, I have to say that the comments about her being replaced by a Republican administration are, at best, tone deaf.

I really do not see how one can both celebrate the survival of someone with whose views one disagrees and add a note to the effect that one hopes that the person, once dead, will be replaced by someone more to one's political liking.

Bad form, folks.
2.13.2009 8:37pm
theobromophile (www):
What wonderful news (with the lone exception of the malignant, presumably removed, tumor). Cancer is frightening and painful; pancreatic more so than most.

I hope that Justice Ginsburg continues to live a long, full life after this, both for her own sake and so that other people with cancer (especially pancreatic) can take some measure of hope from seeing her.
2.14.2009 3:54am
Cornellian (mail):
I want President Thompson to name her successor

Seriously, do you think he'd even run again after his performance the last time around?
2.14.2009 6:05pm
SFC B (mail) (www):

I want President Thompson to name her successor

Seriously, do you think he'd even run again after his performance the last time around?


He meant FRED Thompson? I thought there was some other Thompson who would be running for office who I hadn't heard of.
2.14.2009 10:52pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):



what chris said. it almost reads like if mccain had won, these people would be hoping justice ginsburg died.
2.15.2009 2:12am
LM (mail):

He meant FRED Thompson?

Hunter Thompson will be POTUS before Fred will.
2.15.2009 2:27am
Gray Ghost:
"He meant FRED Thompson? I thought there was some other Thompson who would be running for office who I hadn't heard of."

Oh, Tommy Thompson, how quickly you have been forgotten.

GG
2.16.2009 2:29pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Link B I Strike Block Quote
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.