Speaking of targeted therapies
 

In regard to the trend in the thread for treating brain mets which started when Lani posted a report on standards, I always wonder when medical oncologists are going to dump the criteria of the current static system of staging bc, for a more dynamic taxonomy that relates to today's real world.

There's a lot of talk about targeted therapies based on genetic make-up and individual pathology reports, but the current stage-I-to-stage-IV system doesn't accommodate them.

For example, at a major NYC cancer institute I was told at a consultation in mid 2005 after all my treatments were completed in my local, borough hospital (including off-label Herceptin) that all I needed for follow-up was blood work and tumor markers. But no scans.

I left that appointment thinking that hell would freeze over before I wouldn't have any scans. I had 7+ nodes and was HER2+ and ER-/PR-, yet I was put in the same taxonomic classification as a bc patient who has 1+ node and is HER2- and ER+/PR+.

I realized then that the staging system for bc was behind the times, and now it's even further behind. I don't mean to sound-off but there are fundamental flaws in the current, static pigeon-hole system.

Joan

Re: Speaking of targeted therapies
 

RECIST criteria seems incomplete and/or misleading too.