Recurrence vs. Metastatic

[shonda]

I have metastatic disease I have been batteling for 4 yrs now.
I know what recurrence means, but my question is:
What is worse?
I am running out of chemo options at this point as I am on my 5th-6th line.
I did ask my onc last week-- since the mets have now gone to the liver, what happens if they can't be controlled (which I do know that answer), but she said to me that it is unrealistic to think I am going to live another 10 yrs. Not a canidate for surgery since there are 6 and in both lobes.
So lets say we pull them back and reach NED here.. If they showed up again later is that considered a recurrence or just still batteling mets all together.
It sounds to me someone with a recurrence has "more" options then some one who has been batteling with lines of chemo-- bone mets and then liver shows up while on taxol. My onc keeps telling me the cancer finds a way to wiggle around chemo and the more chemo you have the more resistant you become. I am Her2 positive and on herceptain for the last 4 yrs. There has even been mention of being resistant to that. WOW what does a person do when we have used chemo to keep bone mets stable and there is not much left for this organ?
Thanks
Shonda