HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post - Anyone with tumors less than one centimeter?

RobinP · 12-14-2008, 07:48 PM

Study referenced:
http://her2support.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=37140

Yep, had only 4mm invasive her2+.

Just want to say that you have to read the data from the study that I posted in the SABC posting area (Breast Cancer Meeting Highlights) in light of the fact that RFS is a local relapse and the DRFS is a distant metastatic relapse spread . Now the local relapse was higher at about 23%. I doubt if it would be this high if you had a mastectomy or lumpectomy with good rads and surgical clearance. Now let's face it, a local relapse is not as bad as a distant one in many cases.

For the DRFS distant risk free survival, the relapse was only 12% in the first five years and went down to 7.5 % in years 5- 10. Now Becky is right that these stats may be decreased via chemo and herceptin. Just figuring Herceptin alone, that would be about 6% risk in the first five years and 3.5 in years 5-10 for a distant spread and if you make it beyond ten years, I bet the risk is even lower. Now remember the risk of death from just driving a car each year is about 2%. Go figure, your risks of a relapse of early stage her2+ bc is not much more and even if you do relapse, Herceptin and DM1 super Herceptin, Laptanib, Pertuzumab, Avastin are increasing survival of late stage her2+ bc all the time.

I hope this post makes you see things more optimistic.

PS This study would have been easier to draw conclusions if the T1a and b had been separated in conclusions, as well as hormonal status. We know from the HERA trial that hormonal negatives with her2 stats have a higher relapse compared to her2positives hormonal positive by about 50% for early stage in the first two years. Nobody really knows if this increase relapse rate for the her2+, er-,pr - tapers off after two years and beyond five years, but it seems likely, as we know from years of research that hormonal negatives relapse earlier than positives.

Ironically, the smaller tumors in the above study were hormonal negative while the larger ones were hormonal positive. I tend to think if her2 positive hormonal negatives relapse quicker than her2 positive hormonal positives, the hormonal negative rate of relapse would be less after five years, perhaps even less after the initial two years than hormonal positives. So, yes, having er+pr+her2+ mixed with er-,pr- her2+ may scew that data to look worse for the negatives in the second five years. All of this is conjecture and I wouldn't take it all in too seriously since the study was kind of crummy not dividing up the data clearer.

PS I think the real take home message from the SABC this year from what I have read so far is that there is a lot of research going on for her2 bc, and there are many new drug therapies with efficacy and many new ones on the near horizon that are very promising. due primarily to targeting therapies like Herceptin.

12-14-2008, 07:48 PM	#4
RobinP Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 943	Study referenced: http://her2support.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=37140 Yep, had only 4mm invasive her2+. Just want to say that you have to read the data from the study that I posted in the SABC posting area (Breast Cancer Meeting Highlights) in light of the fact that RFS is a local relapse and the DRFS is a distant metastatic relapse spread . Now the local relapse was higher at about 23%. I doubt if it would be this high if you had a mastectomy or lumpectomy with good rads and surgical clearance. Now let's face it, a local relapse is not as bad as a distant one in many cases. For the DRFS distant risk free survival, the relapse was only 12% in the first five years and went down to 7.5 % in years 5- 10. Now Becky is right that these stats may be decreased via chemo and herceptin. Just figuring Herceptin alone, that would be about 6% risk in the first five years and 3.5 in years 5-10 for a distant spread and if you make it beyond ten years, I bet the risk is even lower. Now remember the risk of death from just driving a car each year is about 2%. Go figure, your risks of a relapse of early stage her2+ bc is not much more and even if you do relapse, Herceptin and DM1 super Herceptin, Laptanib, Pertuzumab, Avastin are increasing survival of late stage her2+ bc all the time. I hope this post makes you see things more optimistic. PS This study would have been easier to draw conclusions if the T1a and b had been separated in conclusions, as well as hormonal status. We know from the HERA trial that hormonal negatives with her2 stats have a higher relapse compared to her2positives hormonal positive by about 50% for early stage in the first two years. Nobody really knows if this increase relapse rate for the her2+, er-,pr - tapers off after two years and beyond five years, but it seems likely, as we know from years of research that hormonal negatives relapse earlier than positives. Ironically, the smaller tumors in the above study were hormonal negative while the larger ones were hormonal positive. I tend to think if her2 positive hormonal negatives relapse quicker than her2 positive hormonal positives, the hormonal negative rate of relapse would be less after five years, perhaps even less after the initial two years than hormonal positives. So, yes, having er+pr+her2+ mixed with er-,pr- her2+ may scew that data to look worse for the negatives in the second five years. All of this is conjecture and I wouldn't take it all in too seriously since the study was kind of crummy not dividing up the data clearer. PS I think the real take home message from the SABC this year from what I have read so far is that there is a lot of research going on for her2 bc, and there are many new drug therapies with efficacy and many new ones on the near horizon that are very promising. due primarily to targeting therapies like Herceptin. __________________ Robin 2002- dx her2 positive DCIS/bc TX Mast, herceptin chemo Last edited by RobinP; 12-15-2008 at 08:44 AM..