[TSund]

Opening this up again because I missed this thread. I fought our first onc like crazy about her rec of the "golden AC/TH standard" because I had read Slamon's research. She treated me like I was a blogging idiot. I refused to back down and I insisted we seek another opinion. I left xeroxes of studies at her office the next day. (I should send her RUth's path report now! or would that be spiteful?) Our new onc is a noted researcher, and although she too first recommended the "standard", after much discussion and careful thought gave us the go-ahead on TCH. Ruth responded wonderfully beyond anyone's hopes. I still feverently believe in getting the Herceptin in the equation ASAP. I'm just a musician, but it seems totally illogical to give AC when you don't know if it will help but there is a strong possibility that Herceptin could be a lifesaver and the AC delays the Herceptin. And the AC could end up getting in the way of the Herceptin if heart complications arise. For us the decision was simple but it is absurd that I had to be the one to find the info. THis should be standard information presented in any HER2+ initial consult.

I asked for Ruth to be given the TOPO ll test after we were under way in the TCH and new onc said there was no point, as TOPO + do better IN GENERAL ?? I still don't know what to make of this, but this onc is excellent in her breadth of knowledge and I decided to trust her. Any thoughts?

I believe too many doctor's are covering their rears and feel they must prescribe the "standard" even when there is evidence pointing in another direction. Our new onc said TCH wasn't proven over the long term yet, but when I asked her if she thought the evidence would prove out in the long run she paused and said "YES, I believe it will". WE decided as a team to go for it.