Given the relatively low side effect profile, Herceptin seems a pretty manageable way to get some edge on the beast. Herceptin gave my mom less side effects than Arimidex. And she appears to be quite the sensitive one.
Joan,The other way is the classic half empty, half full. Of course, the "cloudy" imagery might be very appropriate.
Manipulated the sample, webmum? Sounds err FISHy. I have visions of the onco version of swapping urine samples for a drug test
The thing about these results, if I can resume beating the dead horse, is that the limited sampling, time to fixation and varying quality of interpretation is a bit unnerving. I 've heard everything from "1.8 is as negative as can be" to the statement at the top of this thread. The fact that Cal-Gal mentions varying status between tumors at time of surgery is a prime example. A mets patient is lucky to get 1 biopsy and they extrapolate from there. Hardly an adequate approach as we embrace "targeted" treatment decisions. Just like screening, we don't need less testing..just better testing.
Mcgle, are you talking about IHC because 2 is positive by FISH test? BTW, the only reason for the treatment signatures is to help put people's situation in context. I was uncomfortable with the idea until I realized how helpful it was to learn from and make useful comments. If I came across a treatment issue, I could remember "Ah..so and so had that, wonder what she thinks about it" With a profile name like mcgle(how to prnounce it?), your anonymity is assured. I actually found it very helpful to force things into a one page format. Most oncs don't have anything as concise as what patients here put together.