Why Im Not Doing Chemo
Comments
-
Eveberry- what is your Oncotype score??
0 -
A lot of ladies seem to get ovarian ablation, often in addition to chemo. There doesn't appear to be difficulty in accessing this treatment and it appears doctors do recommend it where considered beneficial (including due to BRAC+ status or to advance to menopausal status so that an AI can be prescribed). Plus, other ladies appear to select this treatment for added protection.
In Eve's case, I believe she has said she is 66, and therefore post menopause, I presume.0 -
Hillck- thank you!
I just finished my 2nd of 4 TC today. I'm doing well, no real issues or SE the first time, hoping for the same this time!!0 -
AA. I dont think they'll ever do a comparison between ovarian ablation and chemo. Ablation and hormone therapies maybe but ablation is not an alternative to chemo so they would never get ethical approval. And as aleady stated Eve is post menopausal. I hope she makes the right decision for her. Chemo is certainly not the easy option, i dont think anyone here would say it is. For some, the se'sare just not worth the potential benefits. Ive seen first hand recently when qol is the most important thing. Hope you're doing ok Eve and whatever you decide you have long happy days ahead x
0 -
Doctors have a duty of care to recommend the standard treatment, which may be chemo. If a patient declines chemo and requests ovarian ablation, maybe with an AI, it is not likely they will be denied those treatments, as far as I can see from reading this site. But doctors cannot recommend this as first line treatment, where treatment protocol based on the outcomes of research, supports chemo. However, as I said I believe patients would not be denied ablation if it made sense given the nature of their cancer and reproductive status.
Thst's what I have observed.0 -
cynsyster and racy,
Ovarian ablation has been used as treatment much longer than modern therapies.
If ovarian ablation hasn't been compared to chemotherapy, then what is the evidence for use of chemo as the standard?
Why would it not be ethical to know how they compare? Especially in behalf of those who have other health conditions that prevent administration of chemotherapy, or in behalf of those who will refuse to do chemotherapy?
Tools like Adjuvant Online force patients to limit their scenarios to no chemo, chemo alone, hormonal drug therapy such as tamoxifen, or a combination. Given that it IS a form of therapy that is being used, why have they not openly listed the value of ovarian ablation as an option for comparison?
A.A.
P.S. I thought consulting a doctor was to get a recommendation and to get the basis for that recommendation, not to have information withheld.
0 -
If this thread is about why eve is not doing chemo and eve is postmenopausal why is ovarian ablation being discussed? I am confused.
0 -
AA, I don't think anyone here "prefers chemotheraphy". The problem is that it is the only proven treatment currently available, and for someone with Eve's pathology it has been shown to reduce mortality by approx. 50%. So yes, the treatment stinks - I think we all would agree with that - but someone with this diagnosis who has this treatment has a significantly better chance of living a long full life than someone who does not have the treatment.
It's wonderful to raise theoretical questions but what good are they to someone who has to make a decision now? What good is it to present ovarian ablation as an option to someone who is menopausal?
Let me try an analogy:
Someone is in a car that is speeding towards a cliff. The good news is that gas is low and there is a 50% chance that the car will run out of gas before it gets to the cliff. The bad news is that there is no way to know whether the car will run out of gas or not. But there's the brake. The problem is that the regular brake isn't working so the driver would have to use the parking brake. This could cause damage to the car and the driver might even suffer an injury. And even that might not work - at the speed the car is going, there is only a 50% chance that applying the parking brake will stop the car in time (if the gas doesn't run out first). What does the driver do?
- Does the driver apply the parking brake, despite knowing that there's a 50% chance that it might not be necessary because the car will run out of gas anyway and an injury could result from the use of the brake? And even knowing that there is no guarantee that the brake will stop the car before reaching the cliff? But if the gas doesn't run out, there's a 50% chance that the brake will work and the car will be stopped in time.
- Or, given all the problems and uncertainties associated with using the parking brake, does the driver take the chance that the car will run out of gas and the cliff will be avoided, and all the problems associated with using the parking brake will also be avoided. That sounds good, except that there's a 50% chance that the gas won't run out and the car - and the driver - will go over the cliff.
- Or does the driver get angry that the parking brake is such an imperfect option and yet is the only option available to stop the car? Does the driver think about how this wouldn't be nearly the dilemma if the car had been built with a parachute - and therefore decides that rather than apply the brake, he'll wait for the day when cars do have parachutes. AA, this is where I see you to be in this discussion. Raising the idea of adding parachutes to cars is interesting and worthy of discussion and maybe will lead to something big, but for someone who has to make a decision today, before parachutes are available, it only adds confusion and muddies the discussion.
I truly hope that this analogy has not offended anyone.
momof3boys, as mentioned above, I don't think that Eve had the Oncotype. I believe that normally it's not given to women who have breast cancer is HER2+ because by virtue of it being HER2+, the score is certain to be very high.
0 -
If I am post menopausal and have already had my ovaries removed, why would I need to take any hormonal therapy? I'm producing very little estrogen and no progestrone as evidenced by my current hot flashes and insomnia!
0 -
How does ovarian ablation kill potentially circulating cancer cells like chemo does? Chemo is a systemic therapy -- ovarian ablation is an adjuvant treatment, is it not? It seems to me that an analogy would be you have a house infested with vermin. You can get an exterminator in to get rid of the vermin, but the treatment might make you ill. Or you could remove the refrigerator and hope the vermin will go away. It seems to me to be a complete non sequiter.
Here is my perspective on chemo. I didn't have it, because both of my cancers were DCIS. I am going to have an oophorectomy later this year after I finish Stage II DIEP surgery. Had circumstances been different and my recurrent bc had been invasive, I would not have hesitated to have chemo if it was recommended.
My sister has Stage IV peritoneal mets (ILC). She has a J-tube and can't seem to get out of the hospital right now. Her initial chemo (4 rounds of AC and 4 of taxol) gave her 2 good years before she progressed. She is on Abraxane now in hopes to beat back the mets. She didn't hesitate, and she has volunteered for clinical trials should it get to that. She will take chemo as long as she can.
My friend at work was a cervical cancer survivor - still clear after 7 years - when she was DX with a glioma last year. Surgery and cyberknife was followed by oral chemo. A couple of months ago she had progression and this week moved to hospice. If there were another chemo that worked, she would take it in a heartbeat. To us, chemo is life-giving, or at least life-lengthening.
There are millions of stories like these, and I have dozens of friends who are here and prospering and healthy because of chemo. You don't have to take chemo, but you should understand that it does save lives.
L0 -
For those of you interested in ovarian suppression vs. chemotherapy in ER+ /HER2 negative tumors, there ARE several studies. Keep in mind, though, one of the studies (PERCHE) was closed early due to lack of partipation. If anyone has followed this thread, you will note that I mentioned earlier, that the heroes in this story are those sisters who participate in clinical trials. Below is a retrospective study that looked at all of the studies concerning ovarian suppression vs. chemotherapy. Despite what Alaska Angel says, there are many ongoing studies. But, as Beesie mentioned, more often than not, studies are not completed and solutions forthcoming in the timeframe when we need answers.
Again, I wish that AA would take her discussion elsewhere because, Eve's situation, has NOTHING whatsoever to do with ovarian suppression since she is menopausal and is HER2 positive.
And, I want to point out once again, that despite the fact that AA was NOT offered ovarian suppression as an alternative to chemotherapy, I was and so are many women nowadays. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, with genetic screening, more and more women who have ER+ HER2 negative tumors are able to defer chemotherapy. Not sure why she is hell bent on questioning the motivations of researchers and clinicians. However, I think this retrospective analysis is a testament to the hard work that researchers are doing as they try to unravel the mystery of how to best treat patients.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 7;(4):CD004562.
LHRH agonists for adjuvant therapy of early breast cancer in premenopausal women.
Goel S, Sharma R, Hamilton A, Beith J.Source
Medical Oncology, Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Gloucester House, Level 6, RPA Hospital, Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW, Australia, 2050.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Approximately 60% of breast cancers amongst premenopausal women express the nuclear oestrogen receptor (ER+ breast cancer). Adjuvant endocrine therapy is an integral component of care for ER+ breast cancer, exerting its effect by reducing the availability of oestrogen to micrometastatic tumour cells. Endocrine strategies in premenopausal women include oestrogen receptor blockade with tamoxifen, temporary suppression of ovarian oestrogen synthesis by luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, or permanent interruption of ovarian oestrogen synthesis with oophorectomy or radiotherapy. Aromatase inhibitors are also available with concurrent suppression of ovarian oestrogen synthesis, either through LHRH agonists, surgery, or radiotherapy. Chemotherapy can also have an endocrine action in premenopausal women by interrupting ovarian oestrogen production, either temporarily or permanently. International consensus statements recommend single agent tamoxifen as the current standard adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women (often preceded by chemotherapy), and the role of LHRH agonists remains under active investigation.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess LHRH agonists as adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer.
SEARCH STRATEGY:
The Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register was searched on 19 February 2009. This register incorporates references from CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library) (to 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2008), EMBASE (until 2002); and handsearches of abstracts from the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, and the Clinical Oncological Society of Australia Annual Meeting. MEDLINE references (from August 2008 to 19th February 2009) were checked by the authors. The reference lists of related reviews were checked. A final check of the list of trials maintained by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group was made in January 2008.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
All randomised trials assessing LHRH agonists as adjuvant treatment in premenopausal women with early stage breast cancer were included. Specifically, we included trials that compared:(A) LHRH agonists (experimental arm) versus another treatment;(B) LHRH agonists + anti-oestrogen (experimental arm) versus another treatment;(C) LHRH agonists + chemotherapy (experimental arm) versus another treatment;(D) LHRH agonists + anti-oestrogen + chemotherapy (experimental arm) versus another treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Data were collected from trial reports. We reported estimates for the differences between treatments on recurrence free survival, overall survival, toxicity and quality of life using data available in the reports of each trial. Meta-analyses were not performed because of variability in the reporting of the trials.
MAIN RESULTS:
We identified 14 randomised trials that involved over 13,000 premenopausal women with operable breast cancer, most of whom were ER+. The numbers of trials making the different comparisons were:(A) i. LHRH versus tamoxifen (three trials),ii. LHRH versus chemotherapy (four trials);(B) i. LHRH + tamoxifen versus tamoxifen (two trials),ii. LHRH + tamoxifen versus LHRH (three trials),iii. LHRH + tamoxifen versus chemotherapy (two trials),iv. LHRH + aromatase inhibitor versus LHRH + tamoxifen (one trial);(C) i. LHRH + chemotherapy versus LHRH (one trial),ii. LHRH + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (five trials);(D) LHRH + tamoxifen + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (three trials).The LHRH agonist in most of these trials was goserelin.For most of the treatment comparisons there are too few trials, too few randomised patients, or too little follow up to draw reliable estimates of the relative effects of different treatments.(A) LHRH monotherapy: results suggest that adjuvant LHRH agonist monotherapy is similar to older chemotherapy protocols (eg. CMF) in terms of recurrence-free and overall survival in ER+ patients. There are insufficient data to compare LHRH agonist monotherapy to tamoxifen alone, but available results suggest that these treatments are comparable in terms of recurrence-free survival.(B) LHRH + anti-oestrogen therapy: there are insufficient data to compare the combination of an LHRH agonist plus tamoxifen to tamoxifen alone. Results suggest that the LHRH agonist plus tamoxifen combination may be superior to an LHRH agonist alone or to chemotherapy alone, but the chemotherapy protocols tested are outdated. The data comparing LHRH agonists plus aromatase inhibitors to LHRH agonists plus tamoxifen are currently inconclusive.(C) LHRH + chemotherapy: there are insufficient data to compare the LHRH + chemotherapy combination to an LHRH agonist alone, although results from a single study suggest comparable efficacy in ER+ patients. There is a trend towards improved recurrence-free and overall survival in patients who received an LHRH agonist plus chemotherapy combination in comparison to chemotherapy alone.(D) LHRH agonist + chemotherapy + tamoxifen: there is a trend towards improved recurrence-free and overall survival in patients who received an LHRH agonist plus tamoxifen plus chemotherapy in comparison to chemotherapy alone.There are insufficient data to assess the effect of the addition of LHRH agonists to the current standard treatment of chemotherapy plus tamoxifen.Endocrine therapy with LHRH agonists appears to have fewer side-effects than the forms of chemotherapy assessed. The optimal duration of LHRH therapy in the adjuvant setting is unclear.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Overall, the data from currently published clinical trials of LHRH agonists in the adjuvant setting for premenopausal women with endocrine-sensitive breast cancer are supportive of clinical benefit. Nonetheless, definitive comparisons against current clinical standards of care that include third generation chemotherapy regimens and tamoxifen are required before their place in the adjuvant setting can be properly defined. The authors conclude that the current data strongly support the continuation of current trials that definitively compare a variety of combinations of LHRH agonists and anti-oestrogenic strategies to the current standard of five years of tamoxifen.
0 -
I can see why there is confusion. There is the impression that chemotherapy is the only logical choice to some people (but not all) so therefore why talk about not doing chemotherapy if it is offered.
Yet the subject of this thread is the interest in alternative therapy and the free choice not to do chemotherapy.
Ovarian ablation doesn't kill cancer cells.
But there are still some who should not do chemotherapy because of of other conditions they have, or simply because they do not want chemotherapy under any condition.
So, should the answer for those who choose not to do chemotherapy be to prevent them from having information as to the effectiveness of ovarian ablation as one method? We provide them with the information about the effectiveness of other commercially sold drugs like tamoxifen, or Arimidex. Why can't they be told about the relative effectiveness of ovarian ablation so to help them decide what they may want to do? It is a simple question, but no one here can answer it. Why is everyone so afraid of someone else having genuine verifiable information to consider? Is it a control issue?
The only answer is "we" do chemotherapy, it is not that bad, you can do it, it kills cancer cells, why don't you stop talking about theoretic value of other options".
Neither you nor I are going to make that decision for someone else here like evebarry. She will make that decision herself. Do you feel that she can't be trusted with the information, or that she simply isn't capable of using such information as the relative value of ablation as an option?
It has been claimed here that consumer demand doesn't limit the development of information because scientists are so devoted to discovering helpful information for us to consider openly. So presumably, they have the information by now -- after all, ovarian ablation has been used for years and years to deal with breast cancer. I wanted to know when I was seeking treatment 10 years ago, but it "wasn't yet available".
I'm not sure why Beesie said "The problem is that it [chemotherapy] is the only proven treatment currently available."
Is it? Or do we have other proven treatments like hormonal treatments, including ovarian ablation. Is choice of treatment actually just a pretense here? Especially in a thread that is clearly indicating that an individual wants to know facts about alternative therapies?
A.A.
0 -
Adrenal glands produce estrogen, as does adipose (fat) tissue. Ovarian ablation will not remove all estrogen produced by the body. AIs/tamoxifen would still be needed. This would only be helpful is ER+ tumors anyway.
0 -
AlaksaAngel,
I have to ask....do you have stock in some ovarian ablation company? You seem so obsessed with this concept, consistently and quite stubbornly venting about it in every single one of your posts while at the same time unable to comprehend that it literally has no meaning in Eve's case. What's up with that? Why the push? Why is ovarian ablation so important to you, AlaskaAngel, at the cost of Eve's care? It just has become so strikingly odd, you know? And you've lost most of your credibility here on this thread by the obession. Any particular reason why your agenda is more important than Eve's? If you can't share that with us, perhaps you should ponder yourself why you're engaged in this obsession.
0 -
"Neither you nor I are going to make that decision for someone else here like evebarry. She will make that decision herself."
Yes, it's true, this is Eve's decision, and her decision alone. Here we are all talking and arguing about something that is a very personal decision for one individual. Honestly, I feel very uncomfortable doing that. But I am even more uncomfortable with the repeated attempts to move the thread onto topics that are totally irrelevant to the decision that Eve has to make.
"Do you feel that she can't be trusted with the information, or that she simply isn't capable of using such information as the relative value of ablation as an option?"
No, I don't think that at all. The issue is simply that after menopause, ablation is not an option, so why is it being presented over and over and over again as though it is something that really is a option for Eve?
"Bilateral oophorectomy, the surgical removal of both ovaries, is a surgical method of ovarian ablation. It may modestly improve breast cancer survival rates in some premenopausal women whose tumors are hormone receptor-positive. In these women, combining this procedure with tamoxifen may improve results beyond those of standard chemotherapies. Oophorectomy does not benefit women after menopause" http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/breast-cancer/hormone-therapy.html
"Ovarian ablation Another way of blocking the estrogen hormone is to do an ovarian ablation. This is done in pre-menopausal women only because the ovaries of post-menopausal women are not functional. " http://medicineworld.org/cancer/breast/treatment/hormone.html
I could provide dozens of other references but I think we all know that ovarian ablation is not a meaningful treatment, or one that would provide any benefit, for post-menopausal women. AA, why are you continuing to present it as a viable option?
0 -
AA - you said
"Neither you nor I are going to make that decision for someone else here like evebarry. She will make that decision herself. Do you feel that she can't be trusted with the information, or that she simply isn't capable of using such information as the relative value of ablation as an option?"
It has been said many times above - for the last time Eve is postmenopausal by many years - there is absolutely no point in having her ovaries removed.
0 -
Beesie
That is my confusion also. Perhaps AA can clear it up for us. This thread is not about hypothetical treatment for the average woman. It is about real optons for a real woman and ovarian oblation is not an option for a woman past menopause because if the ovaries already have ceased to function they do not need to be suppressed.
ETA: Susie you and I must have been posting at the same time.
0 -
In your op eve you said you are open to herceptin. Is that going to be part of your treatment plan? Again hope you're recovering and not getting the irrits about the row! Its really clesr that people care about you and want to offer you support x
0 -
I'm not as sure as you are about ovarian ablation effects but am very open to discussion so that it is better understood, especially since you have provided general indication that it has been studied and yet the comparison is not available as a choice to consider on sites such as Adjuvant Online. Why not? If it is a poor comparison to chemotherapy, what is the harm in showing what its value is? Right now, one is limited to choosing between commercial antihormonal drug use or chemotherapy or both or no therapy. If the articles you provide have actually calculated the effectiveness, why isn't it openly provided for each person's situation for comparison, like all other therapies are on Adjuvant Online or other predictors?
My impression is that surgical ovarian ablation is more complete than menopause in terms of its hormonal effects, and the goal with breast cancer is to achieve the hormonal effects. In younger women (and some older women as well), chemotherapy is not as effective in that regard, since they can sometimes resume ovulating despite chemotherapy. Also, chemotherapy's effect is primarily during the first 5 to 6 years and then drops off fairly precipitously, whereas the effects of surgical ovarian ablation are permanent/long-term.
A.A.
0 -
AA, seriously, give it up! What's your agenda? Seriously? One has to ask, at this point, what's in for AA to continue with this obsession in a case where it has actually no bearing? Obviously your obsession is stoking something powerful in you, you're getting off on it somehow, but why would you continue to feed your own needs at the cost of another BCO member? Really, really odd, and becoming odder with each ovarian ablation post of yours.
0 -
And actually, despite your claiming to be "open for discussion," it is apparent you're not, which again leads me to ask why is ovarian ablation so important for AlaskaAngel?
0 -
So let me get this straight... Your "impression" is that "surgical ovarian ablation is more complete than menopause in terms of it's hormonal effects.". Can you either provide us with your Ph.D. Credentials or evidence with footnotes?
0 -
Never mind.
0 -
I have to say, oopherectomy could possibly be used as a substitute for hormonal therapy, but not for chemo. AA, the goal of chemo is not to induce menopause. It is to kill rogue cancer cells.
0 -
I also have to wonder what AA's agenda is - I have asked before. Why would someone who is supposedly 10 years out from successful treatment still hang around here? Most of us are still undergoing treatment in one form or another and it makes perfect sense for us to still be here.0
-
Sweetbean... On the contrary, many ER+ HER2 negative women like myself who are premenopausal with low OncotypeDX scores are defering chemo and opting for ovarian suppression with the blessings of our doctors.
0 -
sweetbean, it can be confusing. You are correct in that a goal of chemotherapy is to cause apoptosis of fast-dividing cells. However, chemotherapy also affects the ovaries and brings about chemopause, and whether you consider that to have no hormonal effect of significance, others do.
http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/9/5/507.abstract
"In addition, cytotoxic chemotherapy unpredictably produces amenorrhea and primary ovarian failure in 10%-95% of premenopausal women as a function of patient age, cumulative dose, and the specific agents used"
and
"Data suggest that ovarian ablation followed by some years of tamoxifen produces similar results to those seen with adjuvant chemotherapy in women with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer; however, the value of combining these modalities is still unclear."
The question in regard to evebarry is at least twofold. The general protective effects of chemotherapies drop off as time goes by, but I don't know if that is true of chemopausal effect on the ovaries or if that is permanent with chemotherapy. The second question is, would chemopause have a more complete and long-term effect on evebarry for protection than normal menopause?
A.A.
0 -
I applaud your efforts to be proactive in your treatment. It's difficult to stand up, stand out, and not just go with SOC 'standard of care' treatments. I too have done this. I was diagnosed with Triple Neg. BC in left Breast. I've been learning nutrition and healthy lifestyle since 2006 and have learned a ton of things. I actually know more than some of the doctors I've been to. Ex: In April 2011 I was diagnosed with Triple Neg. Breast Cancer, stage 3. I was prescribed 4 rounds of Taxatare, cytoxin and Adrymicin chemo. When I disclosed all the supplements I'd been taking for years now, my onc. told me to stop all vitamins and supplements. I was only allowed a B Vitamin! I was persisitant and asked what about Vit. D, Probiotics. He replied NO to everything I was taking! I said that's my immune system! He asked me why did I want to take thousands of $$$ of chemo just to make it not work by taking vitamins and supplements. I'd been reading Dr. Blaylocks 'Nutrition Strategies for Cancer Patients', so I couldn't believe my onc.'s thinking!!!!! I took the chemo and kept taking my vitamins and supplements anyway. Took only 2 rounds of chemo and it shrank a golf ball size tumor down to where I couldn't feel it at all. The chemo worked GREAT with vitamins and antioxidents! I then wanted the mastectomy and the onc refused, telling me I had to have the 3rd and 4th rounds of chemo. I asked why? He said that's just the way it's done! I'm an individual and do not want Standard Of Care (SOC) treatment from SOC doctors! I found another oncologist 4 hours away in another city who treats with immunotherephy along with chemo and radiation treatments. He said though it was good that the tumor responded so well to the 2 rounds of chemo, we don't want to tear down the immune system while tearing down the tumor. We want to debulk the tumor asap with surgery, then go after any residual cancer cells with the immune system. God's design! He agreed I didn't need more chemo to get the surgery, kept me on everything I was already taking, put me on some extra immune supplements and referred me to a wonderful breast surgeon. I immediately got the mastectomy and my marker tests have gone from 17 in April at diagnosis to 12 in July after surgery to 9 at Christmas. I am PROOF that antioxidents DO NOT prevent chemo from working, quite the contrary... they DO ENHANCE it while protecting the immune system as much as possible from the distruction of chemo. The only side effect I had on chemo was I lost my hair and I was weak with no appetite for about 5 days after. I ate baby food at room temp and drank water. Those were a few rough days both times. I also dragged out the time frame of taking those 2 rounds. (Patrick Quillins' book, Beating Cancer with Nutrition) Instead of the every 2 week schedule they had for me, I took 1 round in May and the 2nd in June 4 weeks between. I only took the 2nd because the golf ball size tumor which had shrunk dramaticly after round 1 was still papable and I wanted it gone. So after round 2 I couldn't feel it, I WAS READY FOR THE MASTECTOMY. And I got it though I had to seek out another doctor and surgeon in another city! But my present doctors I have confidence in and that makes a big difference in my recovery too!
Oh and through all my diagnosis procedures, not 1 time did the SOC doctors mention ANYTHING about Breast Reconstruction to me. I thought there was only mastectomy to save my life and live with it! I found out from my 2nd surgeon about breast reconstruction and though he himself specializes in implant augmentations, he advised me about DIEP. Breast Reconstruction using your own tissue to form a new breast!
I thank God I found different doctors! But I had to seek them. My ONC's name I found in the back of Patrick Quillin's book, where he lists doctors by zip code who treat with nutrition! Read, learn, save your life! Be your own advocate.0 -
Estrogen does good things, too, though. I was 37 at diagnosis, did DD ACT and was in chemopause for 9 months. Came out of it in November. I discussed ovarian suppression with two oncologists, but they didn't feel that there was enough evidence that it was beneficial. (I am taking my Tamoxifen faithfully.) So I am fine with having some estrogen cruising around my body and work to make sure my body is processing it down non-carcinogenic pathways.
VR, I did not know that. What crappy choices we have. Ugh.
0 -
AA... The questions you raise are inappropriate to this discussion.
Digger... I think what is obvious to you is becoming apparent to many of us. It is sad that she continues to muse and confuse many sisters. Beesie is right when she says there is no room for a theoretical discussion here. Eve started this thread because she wanted to understand why her body was making so many cancers and was originally looking for understanding why it was happening. Then she was looking for alternative treatments due to her concern for her other illnesses that she thought would be exacerbated by chemo.
Instead, what happened here was this woman hijacked this thread. I am certain that if she continues to post, more sisters will be enlightened and then appreciate how confused she is and how little she has to offer by means of fruitful discussion.0
