[Becky]

There is probably a difference when looking at it via low red counts versus low white counts (and what is low in those white counts – ie: neutrophils, lymphocytes etc).


My thoughts on red counts fall into 2 schools. One is the fact that the makers of Procrit (in the product literature they had in 2004 which is when I had chemo) stated that in their own studies – they found a reduced survival statistic in cancer patients who used their product versus blood transfusion. Therefore, when all the data and posts here started talking about it, it was out there already – and by the manufacturer themselves in their own product insert. Because of reading that insert (that was laying around the cancer center), I always wanted to avoid having to use that product and worried about it because my natural red blood cell count (RBC) is low to begin with and continues to be. That, plus chemo plus my last menstrual cycle (where I bled like a pig for one month – I went out with a bang) scared me that I would need some RBC assistance. I ended up not to.

<O

But before I ended up not needing anything, I did a lot of research in case I did. I did find articles contrary to Procrit’s own literature. This data says that greatly upping RBC any way you can (and they touted Procrit) would enhance cancer survival because more red cells means more oxygenation of body tissues. Cancer survives best in a nonoxygen environment so – oxygen weakens cancer. Oxygenation weaking cancer is a probable fact (and probably also one of the many reasons why exercise reduces the recurrence rate of bc). That is all I want or can say about the red cell count aspect at this moment. I am sure some of you will comment and I can then think on this more. However, the horse is out of the barn in saying that red cell boosters are not necessarily good. But, I think if you really need them, you really need them. They just should not be used willy-nilly.

<O

White blood cell (WBC) boosters are a different story. Although preliminary data says that they too are not good (to include G-CSF (Neulasta and Neupogen) and GM-CSF (Leukine)), the benefit of dense dose chemo for bc (every 2 weeks for AC followed by taxol) versus the regular dosing (every three weeks) is great (especially for Her2+ and triple negative women). There is a 38% survival benefit for dense dose overall (including all pathologies of which most are plain old ER+/PR+ cancers). So, it makes good sense for the more concerning pathologies to use dense dose chemotherapy utilizing a WBC booster. The main point is what booster to use – Neulasta or Leukine. Many of you know that I refused Neulasta and used Leukine instead. My rationale is that Neulasta (or Neupogen which is the same drug by a different company) only boosts the neutrophils (that fight short term infection) while Leukine boosts all components of the white blood cell system including monocytes and especially dendrites (the scouts that find cancer and induce the body to manufacture killer Tcells against that). Since both products could have potential negative effects, at least utilize dense dose chemo with Leukine (where one might have the potential to self vaccinate). All the Her2 vaccine trials use Leukine in conjunction with the active to further promote vaccination due to the dendritic effect.

<O

So, hopefully some of you will respond and we can have a healthy discussion on this. Hope you are doing well Angel. I am and will email you sometime this weekend.