|
Jean,
I agree that we need to look at all the information we get from pathology, gene testing, etc., and try to get an overall picture of each individual case to tailor treatment, rather than just focus on one piece of data. My Ki-67 was 11, which, at the lab that did the testing on my tumor, is "borderline" for being positive (they consider anything up to 10 to be "negative"). It was listed in the "good" prognostic column on my path report. My problem for a long time was that no one would explain to me 1)WHAT Ki-67 was and 2) the significance of the score. (Example: Me, talking to my surgeon: "What is this Ki-67 on my path report?" Surgeon: "That's your Ki-67 score.") I had to do research on my own, and found several papers. One paper stated they thought that a minimal score of 30 was needed to determine the efficacy of chemotherapy. My (relatively) low score was a factor in my decision to forego chemo, AND to do Herceptin, as I read another paper where (relatively) lower Ki-67 scores showed a strong response to Herceptin. IMO, the Ki-67 score is a (pardon the pun) "key" piece of information that should be discussed with the patient in determining treatment.
Hopeful
|