statistic on chemo....only helps 1/4 of us??

gqmom · 07-31-2011, 08:40 PM

I recently read a statistic on chemotherapy regarding breast cancer and that it doesn't even help about 3/4 of the women who have it to treat breast cancer. Does anyone have any information on this? Why bother if that's the case?? Basically, the doctor who wrote this said that if the cancer recurs, it would have recurred anyway, and if not, than chemo wouldn't change it either way. Any thoughts???

BonnieR · 07-31-2011, 09:50 PM

Exactly, "why bother if that's the case?". Which makes me have to assume that is NOT the case. I would want to know just who this ONE doctor is who is making such statements and what are his qualifications and motivations. There is so much misinformation floating around. We need to filter it.
Please keep the faith!

sarah · 08-01-2011, 05:16 AM

where did you read this stat?
I find it hard to believe or the insurance companies would be fighting everyone getting chemo.
was it talking about all cancers or just breast cancer?
can you post the post?
sarah

Lani · 08-01-2011, 05:39 AM

whatever the statistic, I think you are making the mistake of lumping all breast cancer together to come up with a number.

"Breast cancer " is many different diseases, with many different prognoses and each responding differently to any given treatment

Dr. Slamon has said that if herceptin had been tested in all"breast cancer" they would not have noted statistically significant improvement with its use and it would never have been approved. It is only becasue a test had been developed which enabled the researchers to find the group of bc patients in whom it proved effective (her2 testing, FISH better than IHC) that we discovered its remarkable effect and even so, it doesn't work for all her2+s and when given in Stage Ivs the majority recur within one to two years. By your reasoning, that a reason not to give it and that nihilisitic approach would keep them from discovering why it doesn't work on everyone and why recurrences occur and prevent researchers from discovering the best combination of treatments including herceptin and better "herceptins"

All are going to die of something someday, so why do we try to treat illnesses? To relieve pain and suffering and someday to beat them, I would propose.

Many more get treated now than treatments can help, but only in so doing and studying what makes each patients' results different will we discover the best treatment which is the most specific so everyone will have the greatest chance of being cured with the least chance of side-effects, overtreatment and undertreatment.

AlaskaAngel · 08-01-2011, 06:25 AM

It is difficult to get an honest answer to this question for a number of reasons. Most of the people who provide treatment are not in it "just for the money", but it is only human for them to hope the best and overemphasize the possible benefit of treatment when they have no way of knowing which patients will be helped by it, and know that "some" are helped by it.... and as they tend to see it (given that usually they aren't the ones to go through it, with all the expense and collateral damage from it) it "most patients can get through it anyway, so why not"?

None of us tend to want to actually be totally objective about this either. We all know that some percentage of us aren't going to survive for long, but we can't handle very well the awareness as individuals that the "someone" might be "me".

Not knowing scientifically which treatment will actually work for which patients makes it harder for medical providers to give hard figures to us. Some of us will survive against the odds with no definite reason as to why, and some won't, even with treatment that "should" have made a difference. So how can they discourage anyone from doing what treatments are available?

More patients are surviving longer now primarily because cancers are being caught earlier and earlier surgical treatment (as well as radiation and other medications) is keeping more cancers from metastasizing early on.

However, the closest percentage I was able to find in the various oncology discussions was that chemotherapy "helps" somewhere between 17 and 20% of the time, and as I understand it, that includes those who get some extension of time with the use of chemotherapy. The side effects also have to be considered, since they affect the 80% who don't benefit.

HER2's have had greater benefit from treatment due to trastuzumab. But providers still are not clearly and openly able to provide accurate numbers because the majority of HER2 patients (as with all breast cancer patients) are early stage due to earlier detection and earlier surgery/rads, and because trials did not provide clear information as to whether this majority needed treatment with anything more than surgery and trastuzumab.

A very difficult subject. See if you are able to get documented numbers for this question, and maybe together we can get an answer.

-AlaskaAngel

ArmyMomLisa · 08-01-2011, 01:00 PM

Before I started chemo, my onc said that I had roughly a 1 in 5 chance of recurrance having done just the surgery. Going ahead w/ chemo he said cut my risk to 1 in 10. Whether it is just meant to recur, as this study dr. makes it sound, and the chemo really did nothing to help, I dont' know. What I do know is that as I go thru the years ahead I can know that I did everything in my power to keep it at bay and will not have to face (hopefully) as many 'what ifs' and 'if onlys' should it one day come back.

I did wonder at times, in the midst of chemo chaos, if it made that much of a difference and if it was worth it tho. But now that I am over the worst of it (some SE leftover) I'm happy I had a dr that explained everything very well - and didn't have quite this pessimistic attitude. Just as there will always be people that will tell you "it's the drugs that kill you" and such things, hoping to sway you from chemo, there will I reckon also be doctors with that same idea. One more reason to be sure you feel completely comfortable and trusting in your onc!! :-)

gqmom · 08-01-2011, 01:45 PM

Here is a link to an Australian study showing that chemo is not as effective as we may be led to believe....I have no idea how valid it is....

http://www.icnr.com/articles/ischemo...effective.html

Jackie07 · 08-02-2011, 01:25 AM

It's probably 'valid'. But don't forget that 'median is not the message':

http://cancerguide.org/median_not_msg.html