recent stats on study...

[Jean]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/270040.php

slowly step by step we go.

[phil]

Taxol alone might have fewer s/e than TAC or TCH, but its s/e's are not " minimal " . another doc out of touch w/ stage iv reality

['lizbeth]

Yes, and how many of these women took a toxic taxane - and did not benefit as they would not have experienced progression or recurrence without it.

first do no harm . . .

[sarah]

honestly if they'd taken nothing, after 3 years they would probably have had the same results, this is not a useful study. I had nothing except a mastectomy and was alive 4 years later and "cancer free" but at 5 I was metatastic. Talk to me about 10 years down the line and I'll be more interested, 3 isn't enough.

['lizbeth]

I think we all can agree this study is extremely flawed. Who would give early breast cancer patients Herceptin and a taxane - and state it causes minimal side effects?

Sarah, you also make excellent points. I would rather see a study of Perjeta & Herceptin, with a reduction in the taxane (or less toxic chemo linked to a targeted therapy).

The concept that Lani showed - of multiple targeted therapies has not sunk in yet.

The industry is too static, holding on to toxic treatments.

We have Kadcyla, now lets us see a milder ADC plus multiple targeted therapies that were determined with functional or genetic profiling. These techniques must be followed with improved follow up and better imaging.

Once again the question should not be how many women can be treated with chemo to get the best numbers. It should be which women must be treated, and which can be spared from the toxicities.