|
The big picture of the of HER2 bc in terms of numbers is the same no matter what our diagnosis is, but it looks different to each one of us depending on where each one of us is standing. For the most part, those who are diagnosed as Stage I are standing closer to the part of the picture that is less threatening, and those who are diagnosed as Stage IV are standing closer to the part of the whole picture that is more threatening. Our perspectives are often different.
We do know that at least in the USA, around 90% of those diagnosed now are diagnosed as early stage. So most of those with bc are looking mostly at the less-threatening part of the big picture. And that "part" of the big picture is accurate for 90% of those diagnosed with bc.
Most of those diagnosed with bc (90%) nowadays are likely not to benefit from treatment whatsoever (other than perhaps the psychological benefit of believing it gives them some protection), and are more likely to suffer adverse effects from treatment, including death from "other causes" that are often not counted as "cancer" deaths yet would not have happened had they not had treatment.
However, of that 90%, those with early stage HER2+ bc are in a more puzzling situation. Some are at high risk even when diagnosed as Stage 0 and some at low risk even when diagnosed as Stage 1, so there is an uncertain degree of reason for early stage HER2 positives to "play it safe" and do treatment.
As a stage I, I am somewhat more likely to see cancer and recurrence as less threatening because that is more accurate for someone diagnosed as Stage I -- even in regard to HER2 positives -- whereas DLaxague was diagnosed at a higher stage and accurately sees cancer as more threatening and sees treatment as more effective and more essential. For different reasons we each did not have Herceptin, yet we both are still NED more than 5 years out. Because I fit into the 90% who stand to benefit least from treatment, I see treatment as being somewhat more of a threat than a benefit. I think 90% is a very meaningful number.
AA says: "It depends". Are we only talking ONLY about recurrence, or are we talking about the likelihood of dying sooner due to having cancer? For one thing, there is an unknown percentage of additional women who die sooner of "other diseases" brought on by cancer treatment <snip>
...do not know which of the treatments that turn out to be ineffective actually may potentiate recurrence; i.e., they may not only not be effective, but also contribute to the recurrence.
Does anyone have the numbers for the people who fall into those categories?
DLaxague says: I think that the answer is "no", not really. and As for treatments that potentiate recurrence - we'd have seen that, wouldn't we?
ME: No, we cannot assume that to be true.
-AlaskaAngel
|