Signup to our newsletter
Our Site Sponsors
 newsponsorlogo
Vote in our poll

Should the government now honour its pre-election pledge to fund more midwives?
 

 
 

PREGNANT WOMEN CAN HAVE CANCER TREATMENT

Pregnant women can be treated for cancer without harming the baby, a collection of studies has indicated.

The research, published in The Lancet, claims that pregnant women can have chemotherapy without harming the baby after the first trimester.

Currently, some women decide to have an abortion, while others risk their own health by waiting until after the baby is born.

Yet the researchers discovered that babies of mothers who were treated with chemotherapy when pregnant had normal IQ, hearing, heart function and general health. However, those babies born prematurely – possibly so the mother could begin chemotherapy – had lower IQ scores.

Lead author Dr Frederic Amant, of the Leuven Cancer Institute, Belgium, said: “We show that children who were prenatally exposed to chemotherapy do as well as other children.

“Our findings do not support a strategy of delay in chemotherapy administration or iatrogenic (ie physician induced) preterm delivery with post-partum chemotherapy administration to avoid harm to the fetus.”

“The decision to administer chemotherapy should follow the same guidelines as in non-pregnant patients. In practice, it is possible to administer chemotherapy from 14 weeks gestational age onwards with specific attention to prenatal care.” 

The scientists have said a long-term follow up study would now be needed.

Posted by Robert Mair 10/2/2012


Article Last Updated: 10/02/2012

Comments on this article

Add comment
   
  • Wow... just wow... Back in '07 when Raven was born, I had tried bfeistreedang. It took a very long time before I ever began to produce milk. Took even longer for Raven to learn to suck. And then, I was having problems getting *enough* milk for her. And while all this was going on, I was passing gall stones. ((OMG so not a good thing!!!)) it didn't matter what I ate/drank, everything flared them up. So, I wasn't eating enough to even make milk. After three long months of this I had to go have my gall bladder removed. During those last few weeks, I had to switch over to formula -- She was starving!And then, by 6 months old, I ended up doing what is otherwise harmful. I was doing three scoops of formula (6 oz) to a full bottle of water (9-10 oz) I wasn't watering it down *alot* and she was fine with it. It never hurt her, and I didn't know it was harmful until she was a year old and already off formula. But we were getting 9 cans of formula a month, and it was no where near enough for her. It was either water it down a little bit or spend money we just didn't have on another $12 - $24 can every week or so.Robin was much the same way, we had to fight the foodstamps because the state screwed us over with them, and they cut us off for months. Robin ended up going through 15 cans a month, and he was eating solid food at the same time. And after the trouble I had with Raven, I just didn't want to torture the baby and try and breast feed him. If nine cans are not enough to feed a baby, why are they cutting back?! It is now making me scared to have another child somewhere down the line.(again, this is nevermore82 on twitter =oP)

    Added by: Bio on 02/03/2012 - 05:04

You are not logged in

ldtlondon