[Becky]

But I wonder if more may be better - taking women to the 2 year mark.

For example, I started Herceptin late because it was not available and I got in the "no Herceptin" arm of the trial. My last chemo was Feb 1, 2005. Then in May, 2005, everything changed with the results of the 3 adjuvant Herceptin trials becoming public at the 2005 ASCO meeting in May. I quickly moved and got Herceptin alone starting in June 2005. In August 2005, I had my ovaries removed to be able to take Arimidex. This began in September 2005. There had been a trial (using metastatic women of which I am not) showing that the combo of Arimidex and Herceptin (only) for a year did wonders (plus being 50% ER positive but PR neg bodes better for an AI over Tamoxifen). So, to be on that combo for a year meant I would need a few more doses of Herceptin. And, ironically, if I could obtain 4 more (every three week) doses, not only did it put me at a full year on Arimidex/Herceptin but also brought me just beyond my 2 year mark. My oncologist agreed since the first 2 years is the highest risk of recurrence too. Somehow, my insurance allowed it so I ended up being on Herceptin for 16 months.

Just wondering. I know the Hera trial published 2 years of Herceptin results with the results that even though 2 years is slightly better, it was not statistically significant. And the Hera trial is different than the other trials as in Hera, Herceptin was given after Chemotherapy and not with chemo.

Who knows what the exact right thing is but I am nearing my 9 year mark and I am still here (and did not get Herceptin with my chemo but 4 months after chemo was done and 2 months after radiation was done).