HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post

dlaxague · 08-01-2008, 09:03 AM

However, women diagnosed as Stage 4 from the get go, being chemotherapy naive, they may never recur and the chemo may do its magic the first time as it does in the lower stages of cancer (by erradicating micro mets that we don't even know are there). I stand by my fact and I am sure yours is true to but we are talking about 2 different kinds of Stage 4 patients.

Hi Becky,

Thanks for the great answer to the Estrace-chemistry question (although we still don't know if there's danger in any or all of those chemicals, right?)

I have never heard your statement above. Which doesn't mean that it's not true. But to differentiate between distant mets depending upon whether they are found as initial diagnosis or after primary doesn't make sense to me.

For one example, people recur who didn't have chemo - do they count the same as initial stage IV's? I've never heard the concept of chemo naivety making a difference to prognosis after mets diagnosis. It's more about what/whether the cancer responds, isn't it? It's true that each additional treatment tends to get a shorter and shorter response, but some get years from each treatment while others run quickly thru the options with little response. Still others try treatment after treatment without response and then hit on one that takes them to NED for long periods of time. There does not seem (right now, because we don't understand enough) a lot of logic to the behavior of cancer.

I agree with almost everyone else on this topic. Stats don't tell us anything about our own self. They are useful only for helping to make treatment decisions and after using them in that way the best thing would be to forget them and move on (easier said than done). It's hard to accept the uncertainty that there is no way to know what will happen to any one individual but that's the truth.

The only part of this thread that I adamantly do not agree with is those who are saying that cancer always comes back. You cannot look at a few of your acquaintance and draw conclusions. Look at the many available studies that include thousands and thousands of women and see that many are cured. The rub, of course, is that no one person can know (until they die of something else) if they are in that cured group.

As for prognosis after stage IV diagnosis - treatment is advancing SO quickly there that I don't think useful stats exist right now for these women. Because they are living so much longer (as a group), it will take longer to accrue the stats that apply to them. It's good news, right? Sky's the limit!

Debbie Laxague

08-01-2008, 09:03 AM	#43
dlaxague Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 221	However, women diagnosed as Stage 4 from the get go, being chemotherapy naive, they may never recur and the chemo may do its magic the first time as it does in the lower stages of cancer (by erradicating micro mets that we don't even know are there). I stand by my fact and I am sure yours is true to but we are talking about 2 different kinds of Stage 4 patients. Hi Becky, Thanks for the great answer to the Estrace-chemistry question (although we still don't know if there's danger in any or all of those chemicals, right?) I have never heard your statement above. Which doesn't mean that it's not true. But to differentiate between distant mets depending upon whether they are found as initial diagnosis or after primary doesn't make sense to me. For one example, people recur who didn't have chemo - do they count the same as initial stage IV's? I've never heard the concept of chemo naivety making a difference to prognosis after mets diagnosis. It's more about what/whether the cancer responds, isn't it? It's true that each additional treatment tends to get a shorter and shorter response, but some get years from each treatment while others run quickly thru the options with little response. Still others try treatment after treatment without response and then hit on one that takes them to NED for long periods of time. There does not seem (right now, because we don't understand enough) a lot of logic to the behavior of cancer. I agree with almost everyone else on this topic. Stats don't tell us anything about our own self. They are useful only for helping to make treatment decisions and after using them in that way the best thing would be to forget them and move on (easier said than done). It's hard to accept the uncertainty that there is no way to know what will happen to any one individual but that's the truth. The only part of this thread that I adamantly do not agree with is those who are saying that cancer always comes back. You cannot look at a few of your acquaintance and draw conclusions. Look at the many available studies that include thousands and thousands of women and see that many are cured. The rub, of course, is that no one person can know (until they die of something else) if they are in that cured group. As for prognosis after stage IV diagnosis - treatment is advancing SO quickly there that I don't think useful stats exist right now for these women. Because they are living so much longer (as a group), it will take longer to accrue the stats that apply to them. It's good news, right? Sky's the limit! Debbie Laxague