Stage 2B with positive nodes
Comments
-
@sciencegal: Thanks for asking. My incredible wife is doing great. I think I am struggling more. She just keeps clearing hurdles. She had her exchange to implants 2+ weeks ago and had her port out Tuesday. Looking forward to better days when it isn't what dominates my thoughts. We'll get there. God bless.
0 -
Good for her Colt! I am so glad to hear that.
You are in the role of vigilant caregiver, I am sure it takes awhile to let your guard down.
Some day we will all find a "new normal" after this roller coaster journey, I have no doubts. Just not quite yet.
I am wishing you both the very best!0 -
You're damned right we'll get there, sciencegal!
God bless you.0 -
Placid what if I had zero nods positive and 3cm tumor is that still 85%.
0 -
Netty,
Zero nodes is better than one node. I'm not sure how much better, I.e. how many percentage points. They only told me for my specific situation.0 -
Placid what does the 85% netty is talking about... The density of the tumor?
0 -
@Shari0707:
I think it's in reference to something Placid's BS said to her about survival odds---->
"My breast surgeon said survival odds for ALL stage II women (i.e. one, two or three positive nodes) is 85%. If your wife has only one positive node, her odds should be higher."0 -
Your statistics sound right. With my diagnosis and treatment (one node) I was told 5-year survival is 82%. For no node involvement it is 87%. Because my node involvement were "micromets" they told me I fall in the group somewhere in the middle between the two...around 85%. 2 nodes is 75%. Here's to taking good healthy steps with all our life choices to put ourselves in the best possible position with the statistics we are dealing with. My case worker told me one big issue impacting survival is people cancel, and reschedule their follow-up appointments a lot because they are busy and think nothing is wrong. Then they miss evidence of local recurrence when it could have been stopped from being distant. This is just one example of something was can do that puts us in a better place with the statistics. And, as we all know, the studies show a regular exercise program puts us in a group with about 5% greater 5 and 10 year survival. It is worth it to exercise, improve the quality of our life, prevent other health issues, and improve our chances! I was tired last night but I did 70 minutes of light to moderate exercise. I'm taking it seriously.
0 -
@Mariasnow:
The figures you've been given are a match for what PREDICT (the Cambridge based survival calculator from the UK) says about your pathology and treatment.0 -
I deleted a few of my posts in this thread because I later found out that items of concern expressed within those posts were based on outdated, inaccurate information.
I did not want anyone stumbling across those posts and getting unnecessarily scared by what was being presented, as it turns out to be bad information.
Nobody needs that.0 -
After chemo I still had 3 positive nodes.. Wondering what that means.. My docs tell me my biggest weapon is the hormonal meds.. I want survival over 80%.. Sad now
0 -
Shari, there is still plenty of hope!! My sister went through the exact same thing. She had 3 rounds of surgery to remove cancer and 3 rounds of radiation and one round of chemo before she was declared NED. That was 10 years ago with no recurrence. Plus, as we always say. Individually we all either have 0% or 100% chance of recurrence - whatever happens to each of us. I know some stage 3b 10+year survivors with no recurrence.
0 -
Thanks mariasnow I needed to hear that
0 -
shari - have you put your information into the PREDICT tool? Or Cancermath?
Here are the links - put your diagnostic info in there and it will give you the percentages for your specific situation. Pay attention to the fact that the PREDICT tool uses millimeters - so a 2cm mass is 20mm. Your chemo is 3rd gen. Also, for cancermath I choose the pictagram display - I like it better.
0 -
Thanks Special K....appreciate it.. Wasn't sure about my states because I did neoadjuvant chemo and still had positive nodes....
0 -
Shari, I'm sure you've been told this before, but with hormone positive breast cancer, it's very uncommon to have a complete reponse to chemo. I'd just assume that those nodes were your only positive ones, unless the pathologist told you otherwise. I had my sentinel node biopsy before chemo and had two positive nodes. After chemo, I had three more nodes removed during my second surgery and they were all negative. My MO said that they can usually tell if there was cancer in them as there would be scarring.
0 -
Hi Shari - Hope you are doing well? Haven't "seen" you in awhile. FD1 is saying the same thing that I told you several months ago. Unless your pathologist told you otherwise, it is most likely that those were the only positive nodes. If you recall, my friend (who is a pathologist) got to look at my sentinel nodes during surgery, and then the remaining chain that were removed after my surgery. She told me the same thing. Often times, they find scar tissue remaining in the nodes if they were positive! And, like we've discussed before, it is not unusual to have positive nodes after chemotherapy when you are hormone positive......Now, if you're Her2 positive too, then you may have a better response because you're having Herceptin along with the chemo, but with just plain old, ER/PR+, its not a given that we will have a super response to chemo! Have a great day!
0 -
Thanks fd1 and wildrumara.. I know I know I have been told it all before.. Just needed reassurance on this day... Where I am getting rads, the radiation oncologist told me that those were prob the only three positive but where I had my chemo and surgery they didn't tell me anything like that.. I guess I thought if I had three positive nodes before chemo and three after... What did chemo do? But I know it stopped, slowed and shrink the growth .. Just me being scared.. So wildrumara they told u ur two positive nodes were prob the only two positive at all? Thanks for writing.. Again, just me being a worry wary.. I put so much into chemo and was so shattered when I got pathology back but I guess it not so bad.. Thanks ladies and forgive my neuroticism
0 -
My wife is ER+. She was strongly advised to do chemo. I've seen the survival calculators and looked at the reported benefits over time. I've heard before that chemo's effectiveness is limited against ER+ breast cancer. Not all of it jives.
My question is: to those who are in a better place psychologically---> what do you tell yourself? Wonderful ladies have told me "it gets better". How do you rectify that you have ER+ and that chemo doesn't really help you much (does it?)------but that you're going to be ok anyway?
Is it just the knowledge that some/ many /most? ER+ women DO survive (somehow despite chemo not being a big help---yet was strongly recommended for you), therefore there's always hope for us even if we have no clue HOW we're surviving? E.g., chemo isn't helping us even though we were told to take it... Do you credit surgical removal? Do you champion hormonal therapy? What belief keeps you positive? Don't get me wrong----I'm not questioning the decision to do chemo. My wife tolerated it well and she's finished. But mentally, I want to be able to say that she took the nastiest chemo around and it obliterated any loose cells------but is that reasonable being ER+? What should I be pinning our hopes on? Is chemo part of those hopes, realistically?0 -
Colt, some ER positive women respond better to chemo then others. They don't know at this point what genetic differences are the root cause of this, otherwise they would be able to personalize treatments better. So they throw everything at each and every one of us. I just rest easy that I did and am doing everything to zap those little guys, chemo, Lupron, tamoxifen, radiation, eating well, excercising, baby Aspirin...
I accepted chemo because I knew that if I didn't, I'd feel like I cheated myself. However, I also know that my cancer was 100% ER+ and 90% PR+. This means that tamoxifen is probably going to be the best solution for me. After chemo, I had two re-excisions before my mastectomy. I had residual disease after both. In between my last re-excision and my mastectomy I started tamoxifen. The pathology of the mastectomy showed no residual disease but showed evidence of "previous treatments." I'd like to think that the tamoxifen had taken care of what was left.
0 -
colt - this is why treatment is a multi-pronged approach. It is entirely possible that surgery was enough for your wife's survival. Chemo adds extra protection, and hormonal therapy provides even more. As with anything in life, there are no guarantees - some of us will recur, most of us won't. I will paraphrase another member (lago) and her seatbelt speech. Cars have been manufactured for many years and seatbelts were added some time ago. Every day you get in your car and put on your seatbelt and go about your business - are you thinking everyday when you do that you might get in an accident? Probably not. Chemo and hormone therapy are like a seatbelt - there to keep you safe, but you don't have an accident every time you drive. It is a safety net of sorts that you may, or may not, need. I think that there is little point to worrying about recurrence until, and if, it happens. If you are confident in your treatment choices any time spent wringing your hands about the future is a waste of precious time. While each of us is an individual, and responds to treatment individually, the survival statistics indicate the vast majority of women with your wife's type of cancer survive - pin your hopes on that. You will never be able to answer specifically which part of your wife's treatment is responsible for her continuing to be NED and getting bogged down in those details is chasing your tail. We are only given this day - focus on that - live your life, move forward, don't look back.
0 -
I am stage 2B with 2 positive nodes as well as LVI and extracapsular extension. I had 4DD AC and 12 Taxol of chemotherapy and 34 radiation treatments. My er/pr was nearly 100% so it is really disheartening to read that it is possible that all that treatment didn't kill all the cancer cells. I am taking Arimidex but that doesn't do anything for cells that are already malignant, right? To top it all off, my tumor marker test had jumped 8 points in Dec. My next appt. is in July and the closer it gets, the more I turn into a nervous nelly.
Thanks to Colt for starting this thread and to all the ladies who contribute their experiences and knowledge. I don't post much, but I visit the site nearly every day and have learned so much.
0 -
@fd1 & SpecialK:
Thank you. So many people come here for support like I do. So often does some beautiful soul ---such as you are ---emerges to comfort and support. I'm early on dealing with this. It is hard. We all know. Sometimes we lose touch with the legitimate hope that exists for us. Then a caring heart comes along to ground you.
God bless you.0 -
colt - it does get better - I know that is a cliche or platitude, but it is true. The further away breast cancer gets in your rear-view mirror the smaller it gets too! The beauty of this site is that you have people from all across the spectrum of the experience, so those of us who are a bit further out from maelstrom can testify! Keep your chin up!
0 -
@Lee64:
I Iike the idea of the cancer cells being killed. That's what I want the treatment to do. I hear you. My wife's MO used the term "obliterate" when he was discussing what the plan was to do to the cancer.
With such a high % receptor status as you have, you would think that Arimidex would really be effective for you. I would like to know WHAT the hormonal therapies do to cancer, though. Do they just slow the growth or stop the growth of cancer-----OR do they KILL the cancer cells somehow? To ME there's a difference. Are we talking about halting proliferation or slowing it----or are we talking about ERADICATING it? Wiping it OUT? I have read that cancer cells can be starved (to death?) if they are shut off from that which causes them to proliferate. Is this true? Does anyone know? You hear that cancer is "the immortal cell", which when taken literally, rules out killing them. But is this true? Are cancer cells "immortal" in that they go dormant (and avoid obliteration that way) rather than stay active and get killed, only to potentially 'wake up' later and start multiplying again when the 'coast is clear'. These are just some of the things I wonder about. Is a cancer cell like something you can drown if you keep it under water long enough (with hormonal therapy) OR can it hold it's breath indefinitely?------and the best you can do is to beat it into dormancy and then hope it stays there? I'm sure that some well-read fellow members will chime in.
God bless.0 -
Colt45, Here are some of the ways of thinking that help me. I wanted to take every precaution I could against recurrence. For my situation, I was in the grey area for radiation. My breast margins were very good and I had only one node with micromets with a good margin. But later down the line, I didn't want to end up regretting not doing every possible thing I could. That's why I decided to do the radiation. I also did the double mastectomy although I could have done one side only. My tumor was large with nipple involvement so lumpectomy was not an option. I did both because my sister had a recurrence on the other side. I wanted to do what I could to prevent that situation. Also, Herceptin is not effective for all those who are Her2+, only some people. But I opted to take the treatment. My philosophy has been to try to get myself on the best side of the statistics I can even if some decisions improve things only slightly. I will take side-effects over cancer. Beyond that, I try thinking anything can happen to anyone at any time. During my cancer treatment, family and friends who were perfectly healthy when I got my diagnosis have since passed away. And, I who seemed to be at greater risk, am still walking the earth. Another thing that helps me is there are so many new cancer treatments on the verge of breaking through and on the horizon, that maybe if I do have a recurrence, there will be something new available. Lastly, I'm just trying to live a good life now. So, if the worst does occur, I can at least feel that I made the most of the time I had.
0 -
@Mariasnow:
Right. We do all of the treatments that make sense to our individual cases, then live.
A lot of smart ladies here have told me I'll get there. I believe them.
God bless you.0 -
Dearest Colt45! I was estrogen positive, and my onc told me I had a very good pathological response to neoajuvant chemo, and I am in my 8th year of Aromasin! Don't you worry, your beautiful wife will be a wonderful mentor to others as she celebrates her many, many years of survival! We are all going to live to be a ripe old age, and start our own Reality Series! He,he,he!!! Blessings, Kathy
0 -
colt - my understanding of hormonal therapy in relation to cancer cells is this - Tamoxifen (a hormone blocker) and the three aromatase inhibitors - Arimidex, Aromasin and Femara (hormone supressors) do not allow estrogen into the cell receptors and therefore induce cell apoptosis, or death. So, yes, they do kill the cells indirectly by short-circuiting the thing those cells need to proliferate. Unless all of your cells are 100% ER+ I would imagine that some cells are ER- and hormonal therapy does not work for them. Also, at some point hormonal therapy can stop working for some people, or some people do not metabolize the drug well and it is less effective. Some newly diagnosed women who are stage IV from the get-go are started on hormonal therapy since sometimes the goal is to save chemo for later treatment. For some this approach fails after a period of time, so like all aspects of breast cancer treatment, nothing is 100% effective all the time. This would be why for many of us a multi-pronged approach is taken subsequent to surgery. You may have seen the recent study by Cancer Research UK that shows that 10 years instead of 5 on Tamoxifen seems to provide greater protection, so I know they are looking at ways to reduce recurrence using hormonal therapy for longer periods of time. BC stem cells are thought to be resistant to standard treatment, so current research is aimed at targeted therapies to destroy them. Why some people recur and others do not remains somewhat of an unanswered question, outside of the parameters of their individual risk.
0 -
Hi everyone,
Yes, the 85 percent was about survival odds. Although the PREDICT tool just said my five year survival is 78 percent and 10 year is 72 percent.
I am feeling a little more positive about survival these days, but still tired from treatment. Chemo ended January 9 and radiation ended May 3. Not sure why I am so tired, although I am working full time now. I still haven't run more than 7 minutes (I used to do 40), but I can walk for an hour. I've lost 16 pounds from healthy eating. 14 to go.0
