HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post

CLTann · 03-28-2008, 04:24 PM

There are patients at Stage 1 who demanded and were given the most "aggressive" treatment. On the other hand, there are patients in the same group decided to go without chemo or radiation. I belong to the latter group.

Those who don't pursue the most "aggressive" treatment and showed no symptoms very rarely come to this forum since they have no reason to get advices. They live normal life for many NED years. I am an exception since I want to learn everything about bc just in case I need to compare notes in the future. So far, all are well.

The arguments against "aggressive" treatments are many: no toxic chemicals to your body, no drastic secondary effects or even secondary cancer from chemo and radiation. Moreover, the statistics reveal that many "aggressive" treatments do not improve the percentage of survival. In some cases, where the ER/PR are negative, chemo just does not have deterrent advantages.

It is unfortunate that most patients equate to aggressive atreatments with the best treatments. Doctors happily go along with this subjective decision since it is not their place to oppose such a decision. They do not want future lawsuits.

When dust settle down, it is a personal decision. For small cancer, no nodule, well differentiated, ER/PR postivie, postmenupause and healthy individuals, it is a more than even bet that you may not need to have the "aggressive" treatments. AI inhibitor should be the only simple medication for them. This is my own personal opinion.

03-28-2008, 04:24 PM	#8
CLTann Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 476	There are patients at Stage 1 who demanded and were given the most "aggressive" treatment. On the other hand, there are patients in the same group decided to go without chemo or radiation. I belong to the latter group. Those who don't pursue the most "aggressive" treatment and showed no symptoms very rarely come to this forum since they have no reason to get advices. They live normal life for many NED years. I am an exception since I want to learn everything about bc just in case I need to compare notes in the future. So far, all are well. The arguments against "aggressive" treatments are many: no toxic chemicals to your body, no drastic secondary effects or even secondary cancer from chemo and radiation. Moreover, the statistics reveal that many "aggressive" treatments do not improve the percentage of survival. In some cases, where the ER/PR are negative, chemo just does not have deterrent advantages. It is unfortunate that most patients equate to aggressive atreatments with the best treatments. Doctors happily go along with this subjective decision since it is not their place to oppose such a decision. They do not want future lawsuits. When dust settle down, it is a personal decision. For small cancer, no nodule, well differentiated, ER/PR postivie, postmenupause and healthy individuals, it is a more than even bet that you may not need to have the "aggressive" treatments. AI inhibitor should be the only simple medication for them. This is my own personal opinion. __________________ Ann Stage 1 dx Sept 05 ER/PR positive HER2 +++ Grade 3 Invasive carcinoma 1 cm, no node involvement Mastec Sept 05 Annual scans all negative, Oct 06 Postmenopause. Arimidex only since Sept 06, bone or muscle ache after 3 month Off Arimidex, change to Femara 1/12-07, ache stopped Sept 07 all tests negative, pass 2 year mark Feb 08 continue doing well. Sep 09 four year NED still on Femara.