[RobinP]

Hi there,

I wish researchers had gone back sooner and done more studies to see if less Herceptin is better. The Finnish study certainly does point to that. Anyway, at least Dr. Piccart and Dr. Salmon are going to have their results back soon...you may want to check into that and contact these people.

I did 9 weeks of Herceptin late as that was the only thing recommended to me, not the year due to doing late Herceptin. Well, I'm still alive six years out. I had a similar dx. with 4mm of her2+ invasive and 5cm of DCIS, ERPR-, but I had a positive sentinel node for micromets. No, the standard of care is not 9 weeks, as the studies were not large enough in the Finnish study to convince the oncology society that their results were better than the larger one year studies. Did the Finnish study have statistical significance? Yes, as the study included more than 120 patients. And I might add that their results were as effective as one year of Herceptin. There is higher cardiac risk with Herceptin for one year as opposed to 9 weeks and that may just help you make a choice of what to do. If you think about it, that is probably why your physician is recommending less Herceptin because of the cost benefit ratio, where you MAY have less of a relapse risk due to the small size of your invasive, particularly if it is truly ERPR+, which has less relapse risk than ERPR-.Good luck in your decision. Get many second opinions, do your homework, and go with what your heart tells you to do.

PS. I might also add to follow some of the her2 diet recommendations that RB has posted to help prevent a relapse. Every little bit helps.

Smile,
Robin

PS. Take a look at the HERA study to see what your relapse risk is for such a small her2+ invasive.