We are 157,836 members in 80 forums discussing 124,881 topics.

Help with Abbreviations

All TopicsForum: Hormonal Therapy - Before, During and After → Topic: Does Arimidex prevent mets at all?

Topic: Does Arimidex prevent mets at all?

Forum: Hormonal Therapy - Before, During and After — Risks and benefits, side effects, and costs of anti-estrogen medications.

Posted on: Apr 29, 2011 04:19PM

Fearless_One wrote:

I am 46 and have had a bilateral MX, hysterectomy and oopherectomy after I was put on Arimidex.   I know it prevents recurrence - by a significant amount.    But what about mets?   With no breasts, I assume my risk of recurrence is pretty low.    I would like to go off it, but not if it reduces chance of mets. 

My onc had mentioned it does, but I have seen nothing ANYWHERE stating this.   I don't want to offend her by asking to see the studies, but at the same time, I don't want to have a hip replacement by the time I'm 50, either.

Just a little confused and wondered what your oncs have told you about mets and AI's.   Undecided

Log in to post a reply

Page 1 of 6 (175 results)

Posts 1 - 30 (175 total)

Log in to post a reply

Apr 29, 2011 04:21PM imbell wrote:

Had a 3 year run before progression. Did have a recurrence but some of the blame can be placed on the fact I was only getting blood tests and chest x-rays. Should have had ct scans or even an occasional pet scan.

Dx 9/10/2009, IDC, 5cm, Stage IV, Grade 3, 5/17 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Apr 30, 2011 06:30AM Member_of_the_Club wrote:

Recurrence can be local or distant (mets) and arimidex helps prevent both.  

Dx 9/30/2004, IDC, 3cm, Stage IIB, Grade 2, 1/17 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Apr 30, 2011 06:45AM beau wrote:

Hi Fearless one, 

 The way I understand it is the a recurrence is a recurrence. There is no guarantee it will be local - it could also be distant. Arimidex stats are based on a reduction of all recurrences - both distant and local. On some thread or website, I read that in cases of recurrence, a majority of them are distant so you definitely don't want to count on going off the arimidex and possibly incurring just a local revival of the disease. While that would be no fun either, it is the distant recurrence which is more worrisome. Good luck on your journey!  Best, beau

Dx 5/5/2010, IDC, 2cm, Stage II, Grade 2, 0/3 nodes, ER+/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Apr 30, 2011 07:09AM kayb wrote:

Fearless one, This might help:

Data Show Arimidex (Anastrozole) Continues To Be Superior to Tamoxifen in Helping Reduce the Risk of Recurrence in Patients With Early Breast Cancer

Effectiveness Of ARIMIDEX Still Evident More Than Three Years After Treatment

SAN ANTONIO, Texas, December 14, 2007 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Data released today show a continued benefit of ARIMIDEX when compared to tamoxifen in treating postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer. Results of the ATAC (ARIMIDEX, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination) trial, reported today at the 2007 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, represent a median follow-up of more than eight years and show an absolute reduction in the risk of recurrence and distant recurrence with ARIMIDEX. The ATAC trial is one of the world's longest and largest breast cancer studies and is supported by AstraZeneca.

With approximately 2.5 million breast cancer survivors in the United States today, the ATAC 100-month analysis marks a major milestone in understanding the treatment of HR+ early breast cancer(1). The data show that the effects of ARIMIDEX in decreasing the risk of recurrence compared with tamoxifen continue even after patients have completed therapy.

At a median follow-up of 100 months, more than three years after the completion of treatment, ARIMIDEX significantly reduces the risk of recurrence in comparison with tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with HR+ breast cancer. A significant benefit of ARIMIDEX on distant recurrence is now evident (HR+population p=0.027), and ARIMIDEX is also shown to reduce the risk of distant metastases. Although there was no difference in overall survival, the impact of ARIMIDEX at reducing distant metastases is important, as distant recurrence-free survival is an important predictor for survival related to breast cancer(2).

"The long-term data from the ATAC trial continue to impact the way physicians worldwide treat postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer," said Aman U. Buzdar, MD, who represents North America on the ATAC Steering Committee and is the principle investigator for the trial in the United States. "ARIMIDEX has been shown to be significantly superior to tamoxifen in terms of disease-free survival, time to recurrence, time to distant metastases and contralateral breast cancer."

The ATAC trial is one of the largest studies evaluating five years of primary adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor (AI).

The availability of 100 months of follow-up data is also providing long- term information on the safety profile of five years of treatment with ARIMIDEX. During the treatment period, ARIMIDEX was associated with an increased incidence of joint symptoms and fractures (10 percent versus 7 percent). However, the 100-month analysis showed that fra 

DX May/2010, synchronous bilateral cancer, ER+/PR+, HER2+
Log in to post a reply

Apr 30, 2011 07:40AM Fearless_One wrote:

Thank you,  that is what I needed to read!  So it was confirmed that it impacts mets.   I thought it interesting, however, that there was no impact on overall survival.   You would think with reduced risk of mets there would be an increase in overall survival?

I also didn't realize that "recurrence" could refer to mets.   I thought recurrence meant only in the breasts....

Sooooo I will be a good girl and stay on my pills! 

lump/chemo/rads/hyster-ooph/mastectomy/implants
Log in to post a reply

Apr 30, 2011 07:57AM Claire_in_Seattle wrote:

It's impact on Overall Survival vs tamoxifen.  Both significantly reduce mets, but Arimidex is slightly more effective in postmenopausal women.

I have a friend who was IIb and wasn't initially given tamoxifen (this was before Arimidex).  She got BC lesions in her lungs which were discovered when she went in for foot surgery.  They were able to remove the large lesions but not the small ones with surgery.

After a couple of years on Tamoxifen, the small lesions were gone and tumor markers were once again normal.  She has moved on to Arimidex and continues to be cancer free.  This was more than ten years ago that she had the lung nodules.

Completed all treatment (AC +T, lumpectomy, radiation and 5 years of AIs - anastrazole). Now celebrating every single day for the wonderful life I have been granted. Dx 8/2009, IDC, Left, 2cm, Stage IIB, Grade 3, 1/21 nodes, ER+/PR-, HER2- (FISH)
Log in to post a reply

Apr 30, 2011 08:46AM Fearless_One wrote:

I wonder what the numbers are, though - in other words, if it prevents mets better than Tamoxifen and Tamox reduces by 5% (just for example, I don't know the actual number), then by how much does Arimidex reduce risk of mets?

lump/chemo/rads/hyster-ooph/mastectomy/implants
Log in to post a reply

Apr 30, 2011 09:07AM nikola wrote:

I am wondering the same thing fearless. I had double mastectomy last May and just had salphyngo oophorectomy 3 days ago. I understand that we are still producing small amount of estrogen in our adrenal glands and fat tissue but I think is very small amount. I am wandering if diet and exercise could reduce that estrogen even further and how much of estrogen we are really fighting with AI.

Dx 3/30/2010, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 2, 0/2 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Apr 30, 2011 09:08AM kayb wrote:

I think the thing is that Tamoxifen is better at reducing local recurrence and recurrence in the contra-lateral breast than it is at reducing distant recurrence. Arimidex is as good with those and slightly better at reducing distant recurrence. So the number differences may not be huge. I know there's a study out there that gives better details on that but I don't have time to find it right now. If noone else posts the info I'll find it in the next few days and PM it to you.

Cindy 

DX May/2010, synchronous bilateral cancer, ER+/PR+, HER2+
Log in to post a reply

Apr 30, 2011 09:13AM kayb wrote:

nikola - Diet and exercise might help but the AIs prevent the enzyme aromatase from converting other androgens into estrogen. The AIs are one more line of defense.

DX May/2010, synchronous bilateral cancer, ER+/PR+, HER2+
Log in to post a reply

Apr 30, 2011 09:04PM karen1956 wrote:

The AI's (and tamox) are to prevent re-occurence....this means mets for most of us.

Karen in Denver, Dx 02/03/2006, ILC, stage IIIa, ER/PR+, HER2-, Dx 2/2/2006, ILC, Stage IIIA, Grade 1, 8/12 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2- Hormonal Therapy 07/26/2006 Arimidex (chemical name: anastrozole, class: aromatase inhibitor) Hormonal Therapy 02/28/2007 Femara (chemical name: letrozole, class: aromatase inhibitor) Hormonal Therapy 03/31/2007 Hormonal Therapy 07/14/2007 Aromasin (chemical name: exemestane, class: aromatase inhibitor) Surgery 10/18/2006 Prophylactic (also called preventive) removal of the ovaries Surgery 06/30/2008 Reconstruction of my left breast; Reconstruction of my right breast Surgery 07/22/2007 Reconstruction of my right breast Surgery 03/22/2007 Reconstruction of my left breast; Reconstruction of my right breast Surgery 02/28/2006 Mastectomy of one or both breasts: Mastectomy of my right breast; Lymph node removal (also called dissection): Underarm (axillary) lymph node removal (also called dissection) , Lymph node removal (also called dissection) on my right side ; Prophylactic (also called preventive) mastectomy of one or both breasts : Prophylactic (also called preventive) mastectomy of my left breast ; Reconstruction of my left breast: Tissue expander placement; Reconstruction of my right breast: Tissue expander placement Radiation Therapy 07/26/2006 Chemotherapy 03/21/2006 Adriamycin (chemical name: doxorubicin), Cytoxan (chemical name: cyclophosphamide), Taxotere (chemical name: docetaxel)
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 05:18AM , edited May 5, 2011 05:19AM by Fearless_One

I still can't find any numbers in any studies.   What does "slight improvement" or "significant reduction" mean?    It just all sounds so vague.   Should be an interesting conversation with my onc.   

And why always compared to Tamoxifen?   I don't care about Tamoxifen, never been on it and never will be.

lump/chemo/rads/hyster-ooph/mastectomy/implants
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 06:46AM , edited May 5, 2011 06:47AM by otter

Fearless, I'm on Arimidex/anastrozole, so I know how frustrating it is when the studies all compared Arimidex to tamoxifen.  Like you, I've never been on tamox and don't think I ever will be.  Wouldn't it be helpful to know whether Arimidex helps when compared to not taking an estrogen-blocking or estrogen-suppressing drug at all?

Mostly, the answer to that question isn't known.  The reason is because the estrogen-blocking and estrogen-suppressing drugs weren't developed all at the same time.  Tamoxifen was the first "breakthrough" estrogen blocker.  It had been used for quite awhile (many years) in BC patients before Arimidex hit the market.  So, when Arimidex was being tested, the "negative-control group" to which it was compared was women taking tamoxifen.

Ideally, a new drug would be compared to a placebo (no drug at all); but that would have been unethical in the case of the AI's.  Researchers who design clinical trials can't randomly assign women to a new (unproven) drug vs. no drug when there is an existing drug on the market that provides a measurable benefit. At least, that's the rule here in the U.S.

That policy does complicate things when women want to know their risk of mets ("distant recurrence") if they don't take an AI or tamoxifen at all.  It's possible to estimate that risk using fancy mathematical formulas with lots of assumptions, and data from unrelated studies that were never meant to be compared to one another.  I guess for those of us who are willing to take one or the other, we can feel better (IMHO) in knowing that tamoxifen works, and most studies have shown the AI's work even better.

otter

P.S.:  Much of the information on these discussion boards about whether or not the AI's work is very muddled and confusing.  There have been debates about whether a decrease in risk of recurrence is really a benefit at all -- shouldn't a drug have to demonstrate an increase in "overall survival"?  Other debates have been triggered by people claiming that the AI's have "no benefit" (i.e., the benefit is negligible), but the studies they cited as evidence were comparing the AI to tamoxifen.  Still other arguments erupted when people claimed the "absolute benefit" of tamoxifen (the control in most studies on AI's) was ridiculously small (just 1 or 2%); but the clinical trials they cited were testing whether tamoxifen could prevent BC in women who had never been dx'd in the first place.

Dx 2008, IDC, Stage IA, Grade 2, 0/3 nodes, ER+/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 06:52AM , edited May 5, 2011 06:55AM by ICanDoThis

The AIs are compared to Tamoxifen because it is the first drug that was developed to prevent these types of recurrences, it has a 20 year track record of being pretty safe (yes, I know there are potentially not so good side effects, but they are rare, and there are tons of threads that rehash all these issues), it's affordable because it's generic, it is the only medication that can be prescribed for premenopausal women, it doesn't damage bones in post-menopausal women, in fact, it is associated with bone density stability/increases.
It also uses a completely different path than the AIs to block estrogen, so it is another weapon in our arsenal. There are women on the Stage IV board who recurred on AIs, and achieved NED on tamoxifen.
So there is a lot to be said for Tamoxifen.

Sue

Oh, hey Otter - I was writing while you posted, so didn't see you. Nice to know that you are still NED'ing along!

Sue - Proud to be Krista's Mom Dx 12/28/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 1, 0/3 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 06:56AM , edited May 5, 2011 06:58AM by Annabella58

Hi, just my offering, but I was told that tamoxifen can give you a percentage of cutting a chance of recurrence/metastises by 50%.

Arimidex is about 57%. 

To clarify those confusing stats:

Say you had Stage 1, no nodes.  Your chances of never seeing BC again are pretty great.  They told me about 85% without tamoxifen.  With tamoxifen, it rose to an average of 97%.  I can't figure out how they arrived at that one either.

I did go off the tamoxifen, got a new cancer, which they think, but are not sure, was a tiny piece they had missed the first time (only got surgery from a mammo, not an MRI) it was held in check by the tamoxifen.   When I went off of it, a year later, I had a new cancer.  The theory was that I was still nowhere near menopause at 51 and excess estrogen caused it to grow like crazy. (I was the estrogen queen). BTW, no nodes and DCIS 1st time. No nodes the 2nd time either, but an invasive component to the cancer, so FF to mtxmy and recon.

OK, FF to 3 years out, had Lupron (ghastly) and eventual oopharectomy/hysterectomy, my choice, to get me into menopause to be able to take arimidex as pre menopausal ladies cannot take that and I'd had 5 years of tamoxifen already.

I may, or may not be one of the ones who ends up taking arimidex for more than 5 years, but you had better believe, that I am getting a prophylactic mtxmy on the other girl.  Firstly to match, secondly to reduce risk (from 35%, 15% while on arimidex chance of new BC or recurrence) down to 1% :) :) :).

So, to recap, as if you weren't confused enough already.  Roughly, 50% from tamoxifen, risk reduction, and 57% reduction from arimidex.  If you know your recurrence risk based on your oncotype score, that can help you to figure this out further.  I just know that little white pill gives me alot of peace of mine for sure!!

Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 07:00AM Annabella58 wrote:

p.s.: you have significantly lowered your risk also, as I was told, by the oopharectomy/hysterectomy.  We still adrenals and body fat, but it's a very helpful way to lower estrogen/risks.  Not fun, in terms of sexual SEs, but effective!

(this was MSK's call and advice; the decision was mine alone)

Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 07:06AM LittleMelons wrote:

Thank you so much ladies, for this extremely interesting thread and the very valuable information you are providing here (so much more than my onc).  I started taking Arimidex in Jan. 2011 and am 100% estrogen positive.  I feel a bit dense, but still don't undertand the part about it making no difference to overall survival.  If Arimidex is more effective in preventing mets, doesn't that impact overall survival rates for breast cancer.  I mean, if you don't ever have mets, you are more likely to survive.  Also, I am 50% progesterone positive.  What role does progesterone play in hormone therapies for breast cancer?  You don't hear much about it.
Dx 8/18/2010, IDC, 1cm, Stage IA, Grade 2, 0/2 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 07:13AM otter wrote:

If we use the Oncotype DX score to estimate risk, it's important to remember that the recurrence risk predicted by that score is based on the assumption that the person will be taking tamoxifen for 5 years. 

Take away the tamoxifen and don't substitute it with an AI, and that risk of mets estimated by the Oncotype score (mine was 17% without chemo) would likely double.  That's the approximate benefit of estrogen blockade/suppression in ER+ breast cancer.

otter

Dx 2008, IDC, Stage IA, Grade 2, 0/3 nodes, ER+/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 07:30AM kayb wrote:

Littlemelons - the problem with the term "overall survival" is that is tied not just to a particular population (like BC patients) but also to a particular time frame - usually 5 years, in most studies, but sometimes longer. It also includes death by any means, not just from cancer and most importantly, it doesn't imply disease free survival.

So - when talking about Tamoxifen and AIs, overall survival rates for Tamoxifen were based on the number of people alive after 5 years of use. It's quite possible that a few of those people were alive but had mets.as Otter pointed out, AIs were compared to the Tamoxifen stats and while the number of patients alive after 5 years was statistically very similar, fewer had mets.

Does that help?

DX May/2010, synchronous bilateral cancer, ER+/PR+, HER2+
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 07:39AM LittleMelons wrote:

Thank-you, hillck.  That was a very clear explanation, i.e. that the stats are being to compared to death by any means over a specific time period.   It's really amazing how much you ladies know and are kind enough to share.

Does anyone know about the effect of the positive/negative status of progesterone on treatment or prognosis?

Dx 8/18/2010, IDC, 1cm, Stage IA, Grade 2, 0/2 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 07:46AM DesignerMom wrote:

otter-  Your explanation of stats for recurrence is not how it was explained to me (by several Oncs).  I admit I am still confused and wish someone would definitively clear this up, as even one other Onc explained the stats your way.  I know that recurrence stats are dependant on each of our particular BC stats.  Yes, Tamox or AI reduce chance of recurrence by 50% which sounds huge.  However, if your chances of recurrence is very low, your benefits of AIs are also smaller.  Lets say your chance of recurrence is 6%.  By taking AIs, you would reduce your recurrence 50%.  So that means 50% of 6%= 3% added reduction of risk, you now have a 3% chance of recurrence instead of 6%.  As my Oncotype score was 16 my chances of recurrence was 10% if I take AIs.  I was told without AIs my added risk was about 5% (50% of the 10%) , added to the10%=15%, not 20%.  Needless to say, I am still somewhat confused about how they calculate all this. I know I am not alone in my confusion and I resent that the doctors don't explain it better.  They basically say "just take it because it reduces your risk", don't ask for details.  For those of us who want to weigh benefit vs. risk, or can not take Tamox because of medical reasons, it is important to know just how much added risk we are taking on.  Hoping someone can definitively clear this up.

Lump & SNB 4/22/10, AND 5/13/10, chemo, rads
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 07:56AM kayb wrote:

Littlemelons- just to be clear - BC patient deaths aren't compared to non-BC patient deaths, but the overall survival stats of say 100 BC patients after five years would include death by any means, not just from cancer.

I don't know a lot about the role of progesterone yet but I'm planning to do some study on it. I'll let you know what I find.

DX May/2010, synchronous bilateral cancer, ER+/PR+, HER2+
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 09:55AM Fearless_One wrote:

Ladies, thank you so much for your responses.   Annie, were did you get those stats?   Did your onc tell you that?   They are very encouraging, I must say!   Cool   Perhaps I should stay on the pills.   I guess I just want to read some actual studies where the numbers are published and I can't find any.

I never had onctype test due to lymph node involvment, my docs wouldn't order the test, they just told me I would need chemo, so I don't know how my numbers would compare.

lump/chemo/rads/hyster-ooph/mastectomy/implants
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 10:16AM , edited May 5, 2011 10:20AM by otter

DesignerMom, it's the math.  I don't know what your oncos told you, so I'm just going to work with the numbers you used in your post.

Okay, so let's assume that taking tamoxifen or an AI will decrease the risk of recurrence by 50% (that is, cut the risk in half).  I know the AI's are supposed to work slightly better than tamoxifen, but let's keep things simple for these examples.

If someone is told her recurrence risk will be, say, 6% if she does not take tamoxifen or an AI, and tamoxifen or AI cuts that risk by 1/2 (50%), then her risk will be 3% if she takes the tamoxifen or the AI.  [6% x 0.50 = 3%]  So far, so good, yes?  (That's the example you used.)

That means if someone has a recurrence risk of 20% without tamoxifen or an AI, then taking the tamoxifen or an AI would bring her recurrence risk down to 10%.  [20% x 0.50 = 10%]   Similarly, a 30% risk of recurrence without the tamoxifen or AI would be decreased to 15% with the tamoxifen or AI.  (Note that we're multiplying the risk by the risk-reduction factor; we're not subtracting the risk-reduction factor.)

Now, let's look at it the other way around, using your own example:  "As my Oncotype score was 16 my chances of recurrence was 10% if I take AIs.  I was told without AIs my added risk was about 5% (50% of the 10%) , added to the10% = 15%, not 20%." 

That can't be true, unless our assumption about the 50% risk reduction with tamoxifen or AI's is incorrect. Check the calcuation:  If your risk without the AI's really was 15%, then with the AI's it would be just 7.5%, not the 10% indicated by the Oncotype score.  So, something's wrong with the math.

The formula for figuring your risk without tamoxifen or an AI is this (assuming the 50% benefit is correct):    10% = 0.50 x "N"  (then solve for "N")

Okay:  If someone was told her risk of a recurrence was 3% after taking tamoxifen or an AI, what would it be if she did not take the tamoxifen or AI?  It would have to be 6%, which is twice (2x) the risk it would have been with the estrogen-suppressing/blocking drugs.  That's basically because the inverse of 1/2 is 2. [3% = 0.5 x "N" and then solve for "N"]  

If the drugs cut the risk in half (i.e., reduce the risk by 50%), then not taking the drugs will double the risk....not increase it by 50%.

Unfortunately, I never was any good at explaining math problems.... It seems I'm much better at yelling and waving my arms.  <sigh>

otter

Dx 2008, IDC, Stage IA, Grade 2, 0/3 nodes, ER+/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 10:42AM kayb wrote:

Otter- Math is definitely not my strongest suit but your explanation made sense to me :-) Thanks!

DX May/2010, synchronous bilateral cancer, ER+/PR+, HER2+
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 12:29PM DesignerMom wrote:

otter-  Thank you for your explanation.  I guess I am confused because 3 different Oncs seem to be telling me 3 different recurrence rates.  I am going to wrestle with my many notes and stats once again to see if I can come up with my "final recurrence stats".  Jeez!  Wouldn't you think this would be pretty easy to confirm at this point in my treatment???  And yes, I am exceptional at waving my arms around too!

fearlessone-  If you are really looking to find detailed medical studies, do you know about pubmed.gov?   I think every trial and research study ever published is there and you can search by topic.  It is very medical, but may help.

Lump & SNB 4/22/10, AND 5/13/10, chemo, rads
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 02:19PM Fearless_One wrote:

My onc said Arimidex would reduce my risk of recurrence by 50% - so that would mean without it I would have had 100% risk of recurrance (for stage IIA)?   I don't know, that just seems off.   But perhaps what she told me was not correct to begin with.

DesignerMom, no, I don't know that site - I will check it out!  

Otter, thank you so much -   :-)

lump/chemo/rads/hyster-ooph/mastectomy/implants
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 02:41PM otter wrote:

Fearless... nah, that's not what it means.  If Arimidex "reduces your risk of recurrence by 50%" (which is what many of us have heard or read), that means your risk on Arimidex will be 50% of, or half of, whatever it would have been without the Arimidex.  The "50% reduction" in this situation is the relative benefit (Arimidex compared to no Arimidex).

The recurrence risk in someone who is not taking Arimidex could be anything from 2 or 3% to 75 or 80%, for instance -- it would depend on the size of the tumor, the number of positive nodes, the aggressiveness of the tumor cells (histologic grade, Ki, Oncotype DX score, etc.).  Even the person's age could be a factor.  Your tumor was a hair less than 2 cm, but with 2 positive nodes, you ended up as Stage II.  I'm just guessing, but no way is your recurrence risk anywhere near 100% (!), or even 50%.  There are formulas that can be used to figure it out, like Adjuvant! and Cancermath, but they require additional data.  Whatever the risk is, it would be half as much if you took Arimidex than if you didn't.

Let's say you've built a house, and your brother is jealous; so he announces that he is going to build a house "twice as big as yours!!!".  Well, the size of his house will depend on the size of your house.  If your house is already a mansion, his will be castle-sized.  If yours is just a single room, his will have two rooms.  Etc.  It's all relative.

otter

Dx 2008, IDC, Stage IA, Grade 2, 0/3 nodes, ER+/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 02:44PM kayb wrote:

Fearless - NO, you never had a 100% chance of recurrence or anything remotely close to that! I'm not sure what you exact stats were (you could ask your onc again) but look at it like this:

If you had a 10% chance of recurrence, the AI would reduce that number by 50% leaving you with a 5% chance of recurrence.

DX May/2010, synchronous bilateral cancer, ER+/PR+, HER2+
Log in to post a reply

May 5, 2011 02:46PM , edited May 5, 2011 02:46PM by Fearless_One

I get it now, lol!   Otter, I have no head for math!  Glad you are here......   I understand now.  

Thank you , Hillck! 

lump/chemo/rads/hyster-ooph/mastectomy/implants

Page 1 of 6 (175 results)