Survivors who have used only alternative treatments
Comments
-
don't go Sheila...you make PERFECT sense:0 Big hugs and sweet dreams
0 -
I agree that posting this on a non stage area of the forum isn't wrong. This disease is so complex we really can't be divided up by stage alone.
I also agree that WOM has already had numerous folks telling her what to do. They are saying this because they care. My mom tells me what to do still. She knows I will always listen but in the end I will do what is right for me.
Mandy I agree that when you are in that rare case then you start to not care about the stats but who knows if your sister didn't do chemo what would have happened. Maybe she would have survived, maybe she would have passed without it. We just don't know. That's what makes these decisions so hard.
0 -
Sometimes women post here with questions and they genuinely want to hear various points of view. And sometimes women post because they've already made up their mind and want validation. I think WOM is in the latter category and now that I understand that, i don't think there is any point in trying to persuade her. Thats not what she wants. And I think she perceives it as ganging up on her so its actually having the counter effect of making her dig in. I realize I doled it out pretty strongly myself, and I don't regret it. I think she is making a very big mistake. But I don't think there is any need or benefit to engaging on this. She's chosen her route. I hope it works out well for her.
0 -
I don't think we can say anything that even appears to be critical of WOMs original post when none of us here --myself included-- did what one is supposed to do first and foremost in a support forum: answer her question. Her question was: I am hoping to hear from some others who may have done the alternative approach....
We should point the finger at ourselves before looking at WOM. We --all of us-- jumped in like sharks with two feet to give a piece of our big minds. It is a testament to WOM's hardiness not only that she continued to post but, also, that she didn't send the fire department after us!
Like many others, I wasn't in a position to answer WOM's question because I did not choose the alternative route, nor did I have her cancer. But those who could help apparently chose the PM system likely because the climate of intimidation against those who choose the alternative route is so very intense. So intense, in fact, that this thread was never really a discussion about alt vs. conventional therapy, as no one besides WOM was calling for alt. therapy here. It was merely a discussion about the merits of conventional therapy - a much narrower scope for debate. Even then, things got lively, simply because when you question conventional therapy you implicitly (if unwittingly) raise the specter of alternatives.
And so this thread, which I have in many ways enjoyed and learned from, nevertheless epitomizes the nasty stalemate of the cancer world (including the bickering in the BC world about such basic things as the benefits of mammograms and medications like Avastin). And it tells me, at least, why we are so far from a cure for cancer. There seem to be so many entrenched positions with so little real proof of anything, one way or the other. I include myself here. It is as though we were having a war about which religion is superior, but for that you have to agree that God exists, and some of us are atheists. Imagine the conundrum of not believing in God but having to rank religions. It is a shell game. That is why we have no cure for cancer.
What I would like to know -and perhaps Ralph Moss or other medical historians can answer this- is why the cancer world is like this? We on this thread are only a microcosm of the whole industry of doctors and patients and researchers. We have been indicted into the microcosm by sheer force of rotten lcuk and we have staked out a position. Cancer seems to be the Arab-Israeli conflict of health concerns. People can talk about so many other conditions (or regions of the world) with some controversy perhaps, but not too much, but when it comes to cancer....watch out.
I say this to no one in particular: I want to erase all religions and histories in the cancer universe, and start from scratch the search for a cure, working with humility and the acknowledgment that we have much, much work to do.
0 -
Sheila -
You are correct that the Stage 3 BC you had often doesn't respond that well to chemo (ER+, PR+, Her2-), so I can see why your decision may have made sense for you. But WOM has a different Stage 3 BC: Her2+, which does respond well to chemo. Plus concurrent chemo seems to be necessary for optimum Herceptin benefit. So I don't think the logic that you used for your situation applies to WOM.
0 -
Athena, I'm not disagreeing with you about what WOM wanted. But don't blame those of us who chose conventional treatment for the lack of responsiveness. There have been no posts from women with her type of cancer who went entirely alt. in fact even the proponents of alt treatments on this thread have not made specific suggestions (except for those who urged her to go conventional).
0 -
Athena,
I think that's a bit of an exaggeration to say that people jumped in like sharks with two feet to give a piece of our big minds. It is a testament to WOM's hardiness not only that she continued to post but, also, that she didn't send the fire department after us!
And then to extrapolate that the discussion in this thread and the varying opinions is why there is no cure for cancer. I really don't know much about cancer, and I agree it is very complex, but the fact of the matter is that treatment does vary at different stages and with different kinds (case in point when Sheila said that she decided not to do chemo and I thought okay that's her choice and didn't notice that she wasn't HER+ which makes her staging entirely different from that of WOM's). I maintain that having people come in at early stages and highlight all the bad effects of this chemo or that radiation or that hormone treatment is entirely different than what would be more likely to work for someone at a later stage.
I also still don't see why it's so attacking and bitter for someone to say what they feel on this thread if it's not going with the jive of the original poster. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's attacking.
0 -
Athena,
Very well said.
Maybe it is because I just went through this today...that grid lock mind set from an Onc. I outlined all my concerns, why I feel a PET Scan, MRI, something is merited in my case. Just for peace of mind for heaven's sake.
He quoted standard care out of a friggin manual to me. QUOTED IT! Said even IIIb is not a reason for a pet scan. And yet, a woman I'm in treatment with, same size, nodes, grade, stage, DIFFERENT Onc, has had a plethora of tests.
Yes I know there are false positives. Yes I know it may not pick up everything. Yes I know!! But they want to radiate me "aggressively" because I refused axilla dissection and didn't get clear margins. Fine. But I want to know if there is any cancer left over after my TCH.
Nope.
He quoted standard of care. See ya later.
I am getting a second opinion, but now I have to try and find an Onc who habitually sees things my way..DESPITE standard (cover your ass) care.
Sometimes I think it really is about status quo, or ego, or just needing to be "right."
And I can certainly agree some of it rubs off on patients. Especially when it works.
Great discussion though. I've learned a lot.
0 -
Some of this varies from oncologist to oncologist. I'll bet there are many would have ordered the PET in your case. My surgeon didn't want to another office biopsy after the first one was ambiguous because he was going to remove the lump later anyway, and it would be biopsied then. I told him I needed an answer about whether or not I had cancer before the two weeks it would take to have surgery and he immediately agreed even though it was technically an unnecessary procedure. I know of many oncs who order tests for their patients' peace of mind if the patient really is concerned. There are rigid doctors and not so rigid doctors and part of this is just making the right match. My original oncologist was extremely competent but he didn't do feelings and I realized I needed an oncologist who did feelings, and switched.
I guess I'm saying we should be careful about broad stroke condemnations of the entire medical profession because of one doctor not doing what he should.
0 -
Member,
Ha. Maybe I should ask when I call..."do you do feelings?"
But I understand exactly what you mean.
0 -
TonLee- My diagnosis is very similar to yours and my Onc ordered a PET prior to starting chemo. Apparently she considers this "standard of care". After chemo I questioned her saying "as I had a PET, we can be reasonably sure there weren't other areas?" She said not necessarily, that PET only picks up cancer if it is big enough and is not very good at picking up BC. Joy!! Now I wonder why I was exposed to that much radiation if it was not conclusive?
0 -
TonLee, that second opinion can't come quickly enough. Maybe the NCCN needs to make the point that common sense should also be the standard of care. Obviously, this doc needs to know that in writing. It's outrageous that you should be denied a diagnostic test.
Nerida, I wish you all the best. It's always your decision and it's not as if the doctors know any better than you do if you do your research. Sometimes cancer patients are intimidated into forgetting that. Tell them what you want and remember that they work for you.
0 -
Athena, you say: "it's not as if the doctors know any better than you do if you do your research."
I have to disagree wholeheartedly. Our doctors have spent their entire adult lives studying and practicing medicine. There's no way a breast cancer patient can learn/know/understand as much as a typical good oncologist, unless she is an oncologist herself.
I'm a huge researcher with a lifelong interest in medicine and health topics and from the start, I'd go to my onc with printed studies and tough questions and, of course, she always knew way more than I did. She knows about the results of new studies before they even come out. She knows which studies are reputable and which are flawed. I've learned a lot from my research, but I'll never be able to catch up with her knowledge.
I know there are bad doctors out there, but to demonize or disparage doctors in general, as I've seen in this thread and elsewhere, is not right. These are people who went into oncology in the hopes of helping people with cancer, of saving as many lives as they can.
I think we forget what must be the perspective of an breast cancer oncologist. She sees and treats a lot of patients, and unfortunately, many of them die from the disease. I really think that is why oncologists are so persistent about wanting us to accept the best available treatments. They see every day what happens when this disease gets the upper hand. They just want all of us to have the best possible chance to beat it.
0 -
Beebe, I have nothing against oncologists. They will always know more medicine than you or me. The fact, though, is that they cannot know about our individual bodies, as the knowledge of breast cancer is just too slight. My statement goes to the lack of knowledge in the field - not the lack of competence of any doctor. I would hate to be an oncologist. I am sore there are some sociopaths out there who only care about the money, but others are people desperately trying to help, and most are probably something in between: they care but they stay uninvolved with patients so as to protect themselves emotionally.
If we were talking about cardiac surgery, infectious disease, lung transplants, etc.... any of the many fields where medicine has made amazing strides to save millions of lives, then we could say doctors know more in spades than their patients. And it's not just to the credit of the individual doctor but to the body of knowledge in the field. For many, many illnesses, they can individualize treatment either at diagnosis or via trial and error. This is even true in areas where there are only treatments but not cures.
But in cancer, my oncologist, an excellent practitioner, had to admit, honest person that he was, that he could not answer the following basic, basic questions as they pertained to me, personally:
--Do I still have cancer (following surgery)
--Would the chemo regimen recommended (I ultimately refused chemo) prevent the cancer from coming back
Wait -stop! Statistics are not an answer about an individual. They are an answer about groups of people who only have certain tumor characteristics in common; their medical histories may be widely divergent. They don't have a yes or no answer about me or you.
No oncologist can answer that question for any non-stage IV patient. For Stage IV, you can determine NED or not, but you can't answer the second question.
Imagine asking an orthopedic surgeon if your leg was still broken and if you would be able to walk and having the doctor reply, "I don't know" or, "Well, the stats say...." I would want to say "Wait - here is my leg - you mean you can't tell me about my leg, and you have to quote a study?" I would not be satisfied. I don't think the powerful sports world would either. That would denote a truly sad state of ignorance in the field. No fault of the doctor's. The deficiency is in the knowledge of the field.
I just don't understand why people even resist bemoaning the lack of answers....I don't find this state of affairs satisfactory.
I have had two life threatening illnesses. One was cured via major surgery when I was a child, with all of the latest technology, a conference at Johns Hopkins, a famous surgeon who flies in, operates and leaves, etc... etc... The second has no cure, but there is treatment which works to some extent for most people. In BOTH cases - both very different fields of medicine - patients and doctors do not have the level of smugness or satisfaction that you see in cancer, and yet they can do much, much more for me than my onc can.
I don't understand the tendency to inpugn the motives of people who bemoan the lack of knowledge, and assume that those people have something against doctors or researchers or big pharma. Maybe some people do, but not all.
I just don't know why people think this is a criticism of doctors or medicine. Not at all. I don't know why we have made so little progress against cancer. That is what I tried to convey, above. Besides, if you read this very thread you will see that not all oncs are as diligent as yours. On the Stage IV forum you read some awful stories (on other forums too). Oncs are like every other doctor, obviously; some are good and some are not.
I suppose I'm not one to settle for this crummy status quo. When people continue to drop dead like matchsticks it's time for humility and hunkering down.
0 -
Orange, I agree with you that HER+ may indeed respond to chemo with Herceptin and that's different to what I had. Do women with mets and HER+ recover? Are they cured? If not then for me personally, the test has not been passed that would persuade me to take chemo in that situation, but I don't want to influence anyone else.
It looks like readers have finally got it that it's pointless trying to change anyone's mind once they've made it up. We mothers all need to remain healthy, but we don't need to use any particular treatment that could harm us or help us for the sake of our kids and we don't need people laying on the guilt trip. We all do a good job of guilt without any help.
My skepticism about cancer treatments and cures extends to alternatives. I need to see people with mets being cured before I'll risk taking any potentially fatal substance. There was a woman on these boards recently who took chemo for a newly presented stage IV to the liver, barely a month or two after she found she had BC. A week or so later she was admitted to hospital with pneumonia and died. Yes, a rare case, but very real. When people take the extreme alternatives they run the same risk, unknown ingredients, untrialed substances, unknown side effects, but it's their choice. We need to properly trial all these alternatives with volunteers to get an idea which are really useful and which are dangerous so we can make informed decisions.
Athena, I'm always in awe of the way you can see the bigger picture, take into account various factors and then put it all into a very readable form. My mind seems to lock onto one or two aspects and I have to think about a subject and read about it extensively before I can express myself even half as well as you do.
I can see that it's the "need to be right" that drives the divisions in so many subjects including religion, politics and chemotherapy. I think you're spot on about the cure not being found because hospital and research boards are not inclined to follow up anything that looks "alternative" or "natural" unless it's coming from a pharmaceutical company. Yes, I know that some forms of chemo come from tree bark etc, but they are still highly poisonous and they don't "cure", only delay. Doctors and oncologists seem to have formed some sort of allegiance to chemo so even when other drugs are trialed, it only happens after or along with, chemo. Maybe some other drug or substance would work even better with Herceptin than chemo, but the chemo bias is too strong to try anything else.
We need a calm and scientific view of alternatives without the ego making decisions. We need medical boards to approve trials into all promising treatments without bias, and we need the more dubious "cures" to be allowed to be studied on believers so some proper statistics can be used for life and death decisions instead of unscientific and possibly faked testimonials
0 -
I haven't seen any smugness or satisfaction from the doctors I've seen, or the other patients I've talked to. Everyone has been totally upfront about the uncertainties of breast cancer cause, treatment success, and recurrence possibilities.
But in other fields you mention, Athena, -- cardiac surgery, organ transplants, infectious disease -- there are similar unknowns. Will I die from a complication of this surgery? Will my body reject this transplant? Will this antibiotic save my life? Doctors can't answer those questions either. Even an orthopedic surgeon can't guarantee that his patient will be able to walk perfectly again, or perform at the level they were at before. Or that the person won't contract an infection on the operating table and die from that.
All of medicine is filled with such uncertainty. Cancer's not unique in that regard.
I agree, we have miles and miles and miles to go in the field of medicine towards understanding diseases and how to treat and cure them. But when someone gets sick with cancer or any other disease or injury, we have to base our treatment decisions on what currently IS known, even if that is only population-based data.
And...breast cancer is a disease that gets tons of research funding (is it all being used wisely, I don't know.) There have been some strides made towards understanding each breast cancer's personality -- that's why some of us are offered chemo, and some anti-hormonals, and some Herceptin. I have friends who've been diagnosed with rarer cancers whose doctors have told them flat out "We don't know what to do for you."
I'm not trying to imply that breast cancer is a "good" cancer to get. All cancer is awful. And it kills way too many people, way before their time.
Sheila, have you read the Emperor of All Maladies? Good book. It tells how between 1954 and 1964 there was a focused effort led by the U.S. government to look for anticancer compounds. "The unit would test 82,700 synthetic chemicals, 115,000 fermentation products, and 17,200 plant derivatives," the book says. Researchers checked to see if any substance killed cancer cells in a petri dish (while sparing normal cells), or helped mice with cancer. If they showed promise, they moved on to trials in people with cancer. That's how today's chemos originated.
Don't you think that things that are currently considered "alternative" therapies have also been tested in a similar way? There's huge incentive for someone to find a cure or even better treatments for cancer. The discoverer would become an instant celebrity and bazillionaire.
0 -
Sheila,
For Her 2- stage IV breast cancer, the "cure" rate is approximately 2%. For Her2+ BC, my understanding is that the "cure" rate is approximately 10%. Still dismal, but at least there is some hope. "Cure" means very long term NED.
Because of chemo + herceptin, for stage IV women, Her2+ now appears to provide the longest survival (better than Her2-)
Sub-category:
Category:
Breast Cancer - Metastatic Breast Cancer
Meeting:
Session Type and Session Title:
Oral Abstract Session, Breast Cancer - Metastatic
Abstract No:
1018
Citation:
J Clin Oncol 26: 2008 (May 20 suppl; abstr 1018)
Author(s):
S. S. Dawood, B. Kristine, G. N. Hortobagyi, S. H. Giordano
Abstract:
Background: HER2 +ve status is traditionally known to be associated with poor prognosis. Recent studies have shown that the addition of trastuzumab to the treatment of women with HER2 +ve disease significantly improves survival in early and advanced stage breast cancer. The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine if the addition trastuzumab in a cohort of women with stage IV HER2 +ve breast cancer improves prognosis beyond that of women with HER2 -ve disease. Methods: Women with de novo stage IV or recurrent breast cancer diagnosed between 1991-2007, with known HER2 status, who had not received trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting, were identified from the M. D. Anderson database. Disease was classified into three groups: a) HER2 -ve disease, b) HER2 +ve disease without first-line trastuzumab treatment, c) HER2 +ve disease with first-line trastuzumab treatment. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from the date of first distant metastasis to the date of death or last follow-up and was estimated using the Kaplan-Meir product method and compared between groups with the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards were used to determine associations between OS and HER2 status after controlling for patient (pt) characteristics including year and age of diagnosis and site of first metastases. Results: The final analyses included 2,091 pts. One hundred and eighteen (5.6%) pts had HER2 +ve disease without trastuzumab treatment, 191 (9.1%) had HER2 +ve disease and trastuzumab treatment and 1,782 (85.3%) pts had HER-2 -ve disease. Median follow-up was 16.9 months. One year survival in pts with HER2 -ve disease, HER +ve disease who received trastuzumab and those with HER2 +ve disease who did not receive trastuzumab was 75.1% (95% CI 72.9%, 77.2%), 86.6% (95% CI 80.8%, 90.8%) and 70.2% (95% CI 60.3%, 78.1%) respectively. In a multivariable model women with HER2 +ve disease who received trastuzumab had a 44% reduction in the risk of death compared to women with HER2 -ve disease (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45-0.69, p<0.0001). Conclusions: The introduction of trastuzumab has altered the natural history of HER2 +ve breast cancer. Our results show that the addition of trastuzumab improves the prognosis of women with HER2 +ve disease above and beyond that of women with HER2 -ve disease.
Abstracts that were granted an exception in accordance with ASCO's Conflict of Interest Policy are designated with a caret symbol (^) here and in the printed Proceedings.
0 -
Beeb75, no I didn't know about that book or the tests they did. It sounds interesting but there must be millions of natural substances and I hope they are still looking at new plants and organisms.
My concern is that most of the alternatives depend on testimonials and I'd like to see them put to the test in a way that would convince their advocates, whatever the outcome. Too many alternatives are just outlawed because their practitioners are claiming to cure cancer and that's against the law. I agree with the law but it needs to make provision for testing to satisfy those who would risk their life taking unproven alternatives.
Since chemo doesn't cure cancer except in a few types, it seems the actual cure if it is ever found must by definition be an "alternative" to current chemotherapies. And once the alternative is in use it will also be labelled a chemotherapy.
Dictionary... Chemotherapy is treatment of cancer with anticancer drugs.
So when we say chemo we just mean current chemotherapy drugs. And alternatives are the potential new chemotherapies, unless they are not substances but rather things like heat or some sort of current or radiation. Maybe with such definitions we can bring the two sides together and see we're all working towards the same cause, the eradication of cancer.
0 -
I'm stage 3A triple positive and 55 and received Surgery, TCH, radiation and AI - there is enough information out there showing the effectiveness of this treatment that I felt that if I wanted to do everything thing I could to be around for my children (17, 31, 34,35, & 36) and 14 grandchildren I needed to try the conventional treatment, and supplement it with alternative treatments. The treatments for triple positive are pretty effective! I'm not saying it was/is easy, but it's definitely doable - Good Luck and God Bless you and your family.
0 -
Orange, Thanks for that. I guess it's too early to see long term benefits of Herceptin yet and 10% would be a big improvement on 1% and worth the risk providing the heart complications don't outweigh the benefits. I can see that the women who are now taking Herceptin are really the brave ones, trying a new drug without any certainty as to the long term outcome.
I'm sure many who have run out of other options would be prepared to trial more aggressive alternatives when their only option is certain death. The price of not being more aggressive in our search for a cure is not just the individual but the millions who are suffering and dying every year.
0 -
Also, I talked to a naturopath and she that she encourages people to have the conventional treatment and uses alternative medicine as a complement to that.
0 -
TCH = Taxotere, Carboplatin, and Herceptin. I had to look it up.
0 -
Nerida, As a public patient I always see the resident first, who then gets my oncologist for the final consult. My oncologist is lovely but incorrectly summed me up as "one of those who worries about all the rare site effects". No, it's risk to reward that drives my decisions and I have a different view of the efficacy of current chemotherapies to other people's. She knows a lot of current research but didn't know some of the down side to giving ILC patients chemo.
One of the residents was clearly angry when I tried to explain why I wanted to stop chemo. She was almost shouting at me. My onco was much more professional and I had no problem with her debating the issue and looking very concerned. She was ready to bring in anything or anyone that might help and has earned my trust. No one ever mentions it now and she is very upbeat about my outlook.
If anyone said "that's in America" to me, I'd want to ask if they are a different species! What I hear is that people on forums tend to speak up more when they have problems so are not a true representation of a typical cancer patient. I can see how a thread entitled "terrible side effects" would attract all those with side effects, but generally I find this board to be a good mix of people with all types of experiences and lots of useful information.
0 -
Just in case my orginal post was misuderstood it is in no way the pain/reactions of chemo that scare me. If I knew there were no side effects and all I had to worry about is pain and suffering to get through this I would say bring it on! My concern is from deep reseach of the things it can do, things my MD team can't dispute. I also wonder why no one responded to the woman who lost someone by a cancer caused by a chemo. To her I say I am deeply sorry for your loss.
There is a ton of stats regarding 5 and 10 year survival can anyone please tell me why these stats are not reflecting in the yearly death rates? If it was that effective as we are quoted why then are we not seeing drastic swings in annual death rates.
Has anyone looked into the studies on Emodin regarding Her 2?? The data goes back before 1995. Government pages cite how it is effective in supressing her2 as well as increasing chemo response. Emodin is from a root. I can 't paste but the gov site is www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 11774202
I don't care what method you choose but would suggest doing the research. I may now even be having my test results rerun. This is NY times not some alternative site www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEr8kzSW84Q&feature=player_embedded
I have no problem with people not agreeing with my decision and giving me data they feel may help me. But no one here has the right to tell anyone what they should do there is a big differnce. If I wanted to argue I could post quite a bit of data. But I don't mostly since so many have had the treatment. I dig on both sides and see flaws with both. There are some serious quacks out there too. But I find it amazing when I hear a friend just repeat what a Dr said with no question or research themselves. I am in a sunny state and if I look up at the sun and ask everyone around me if is is sunny than I will mostly likely prove that it is indeed sunny. But my brother may say it is raining and everyone he asks will confirm this. Unless I get my head out of the sun and look at things where he is I will only see the sun and I will be surrounded by people who too only see the sun. But it would be silly for me to tell him it isn't raining until I go over and take a look from where he is standing. So that is what I am doing in researching. I am not going to blindly do what my onc recommends. I tried that one with the BC and look where it got me. I also know the onc only studies from one side and they would lose there job if they recommend anything besides the standard care.
0 -
Wornoutmom, that's a great idea if you can get the staging re-done at another center. Maybe a different doctor would agree to other diagnostic tests.
Nerida, I also was dx'ed with bone mets 3 1/2 years ago. Everything I've read, including research on new drugs, confirms the benefits of exercise. Exercise acts on the same inflammatory signalling pathways as many of these drugs, including drugs already approved for rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes and insulin resistance. I also think that the increase in blood flow, makes immune cells in the blood more attuned to detecting cancer cells, circulating or disseminated, and can signal the body's defense and repair teams earlier. At least that's the way I've pictured it in my mind.
I'm off to the gym!0 -
Exercise also lowers fat, which lowers the level of estrogens in your body (if you have an er+ tumor this may be significant). It also has proven mental health benefits.
0 -
If my onc or NP rejects that the alternative treatment will help I always ask "will it be a problem if I try?" Basically I want to let them know I want to take the alternative and if there isn't a confict with the meds I'm on I'm going for it.
0 -
Wornoutmom,
I'm not sure what you mean about not seeing drastic swings in the death rate. The death rate from breast cancer has been decreasing since about the early 90s. Even though more women are being diagnosed with it, and there are more women overall as the population grows, the number of deaths from breast cancer has been dropping. As I posted earlier in this thread:
"In 1996, about 44,300 women died of breast cancer. In 2010, SEER (govt data) estimates about 39,840 women died from it."
That's 4,500 fewer deaths from breast cancer each year.
If your question is more about Herceptin, keep in mind that only about 20 percent of all BC diagnoses are HER2+, and if Herceptin helps half of those people (preventing recurrence/death from BC in early stagers, and adding months or years to the lives of Stage IV women), you'd still only see a benefit that is a percentage of a percentage, or small overall numbers of fewer deaths. And, Herceptin has not been around all that long, so we won't see Herceptin's effect on BC death rates for awhile...as fewer HER2+ early stagers relapse in the future.
It's the same for dose dense chemo regimens, which have only been the standard of care since about 2005 (according to my onc.)
It's true, though, the treatments that have been added to the breast cancer arsenal are all incremental -- they benefit some, but not all, patients. But if you are among those "some" patients, that's huge to you. And for the small percentage who are terribly harmed by treatments (like the earlier poster's sister... I'm very sorry for your loss), well, hopefully we all go into treatment fully informed about the possibility of the harmful side effects. For me, those were risks I was quite willing to take because they were small compared to the benefit I could get.
When I was first diagnosed, the response of a lot of my loved ones was along the lines of "Oh, breast cancer is so curable these days...do you really need to have the mastectomy? The chemo? The tamoxifen? And my thought was, breast cancer is only so much more curable than it was in the past because of those treatments, so yes! I have to do them. Unless I want to face the progression/death rates of the past.
I so wish I could believe that better diet and more exercise will keep recurrence at bay for me. But the thing is, my lifestyle could hardly have been healthier before BC. I did exercise a ton. I ate organic and very healthy food (minimal meat, oatmeal with blueberries for breakfast every day, etc.) I slept well and am not a stressor. I am not overweight at all.
There are things I can and will do differently -- avoid alcohol entirely, take aspirin. And I do want to hear about what other alternative treatments might be helpful. I wish people would post studies and data (maybe they are in another thread somewhere and someone could point me to them?) so I could figure out what's worth trying.
0 -
Hi Wornoutmom,
You're wise not to blindly follow your doctors' advice. I'm a firm believer in fact-checking. It can either help reassure you that you're making good choices, or raise new questions leading to more research and possibly different choices. Just be sure you're not rejecting recommendations for the wrong reasons. Best of luck!
0 -
Beeb, one can overexercise to the point of weakening the immune system. secondly, exercise does not benefit everyone in the same way, just like the meds we take. It requires a certain genetic polymorphism to be effective. Maybe several. But it seems from studies showing that exercise helps, enough people react positively to exercise to make it a worthwhile general recommendation.
0
