[Lani]

Margerie--I have now read the entire article and the only ones ,in their original group of those treated during those years, who got herceptin anytime in their treatment were excluded from the group they reported on as their "semi-natural history" would have thrown off the the statistics, which were for those who got the standard (at the time) treatment. I use the term "semi-natural history" for the results of what happens WITH the best treatment for the era.

These sorts of information I think might help people make decisions--ie, as there are few stats on the true natural history of the disease without treatment (they weren't doing her2 testing at the time, eg the 1960s) they wonder what their chances of recurrence may be and when it might peak/occur. Although this study looked only at those who DID recur and didn't biopsy their mets to see if they were her2+ (other studies have done so and the majority, but not all, are), it gives some sort of inkling as to what might be expected if one did not get herceptin. Since herceptin doesn't work for everyone, one might view these figures as the "worst case scenario"

In that way, someone might, depending on their risk aversion level, decide to stay on antihormonals past 5 years(something for which there is not yet any information for her2+ bc patients, nor definite answers for ANY bc patients yet), might decide whether late herceptin might be worth it, etc

The numbers in this patients were large ie, lots of patients, so the stats are more likely to mean something.

Hope some of you found this useful.