HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post

AlaskaAngel · 03-29-2008, 11:33 AM

Hi there!

While Debbie is away I will sneak in a comment or two, and maybe a question or two.

As Joanne said, "I hate wasting my time reading about research or studies that really lack conclusions or recommendations---There are so many. You know the ones that say “inconclusive” or “insufficient evidence” or “further studies are needed”. "

I would tend to agree, except that if a worthwhile question is being asked and legitimately researched, the answer is not known in advance and can end up being "inconclusive", etc.

This question is similar to our debate about markers. Is the glass half full or half empty? Those who see the glass as half full will favor doing BSE, and those who see the glass as half empty will favor not doing it.

Speaking intuitively, my question is this: Regardless of the survival issue, would the glass be emptier or fuller if those whose cancers were detected sooner by BSE (or, alternatively, those whose recurrences were detected sooner by marker results) had not been using those methods?

Acknowledging that some with bc "would prefer not to know sooner if there is cancer or recurrence of cancer", and/or prefer not to be constantly dealing with the fear from BSE's or markers (in which case they have the simple option of refusing them), there is the value itself of earlier knowledge, whether or not it changes survival.

I think most of us do want some control over what resources we have for the future, whether it be in terms of how to allocate them to cover treatment, or how to allocate them in behalf of family or friends or causes we believe in. It makes a lot of sense in that case to know sooner, so that one has more control over whether or not to spend the resources in other ways.

For example, if one is trying to decide whether to stick with a job, or to quit it to spend more time in other ways; or whether to take the risk of changing jobs; or even whether to forego further treatment. Those can be highly meaningful, precious decisions that are never counted by the bean counters who find out that the legitimate question that was being asked ended up with inconclusive results.

What makes sense to me doesn't make sense to everybody, but I personally favor the half-full glass (doing the BSE's and the markers), particularly if the procedure used for finding out sooner is relatively inexpensive and does not cause additional risk (such as spendy and toxic radiation procedures).

A.A.

03-29-2008, 11:33 AM	#15
AlaskaAngel Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 2,018	Have fun in class, Deb! Hi there! While Debbie is away I will sneak in a comment or two, and maybe a question or two. As Joanne said, "I hate wasting my time reading about research or studies that really lack conclusions or recommendations---There are so many. You know the ones that say “inconclusive” or “insufficient evidence” or “further studies are needed”. " I would tend to agree, except that if a worthwhile question is being asked and legitimately researched, the answer is not known in advance and can end up being "inconclusive", etc. This question is similar to our debate about markers. Is the glass half full or half empty? Those who see the glass as half full will favor doing BSE, and those who see the glass as half empty will favor not doing it. Speaking intuitively, my question is this: Regardless of the survival issue, would the glass be emptier or fuller if those whose cancers were detected sooner by BSE (or, alternatively, those whose recurrences were detected sooner by marker results) had not been using those methods? Acknowledging that some with bc "would prefer not to know sooner if there is cancer or recurrence of cancer", and/or prefer not to be constantly dealing with the fear from BSE's or markers (in which case they have the simple option of refusing them), there is the value itself of earlier knowledge, whether or not it changes survival. I think most of us do want some control over what resources we have for the future, whether it be in terms of how to allocate them to cover treatment, or how to allocate them in behalf of family or friends or causes we believe in. It makes a lot of sense in that case to know sooner, so that one has more control over whether or not to spend the resources in other ways. For example, if one is trying to decide whether to stick with a job, or to quit it to spend more time in other ways; or whether to take the risk of changing jobs; or even whether to forego further treatment. Those can be highly meaningful, precious decisions that are never counted by the bean counters who find out that the legitimate question that was being asked ended up with inconclusive results. What makes sense to me doesn't make sense to everybody, but I personally favor the half-full glass (doing the BSE's and the markers), particularly if the procedure used for finding out sooner is relatively inexpensive and does not cause additional risk (such as spendy and toxic radiation procedures). A.A.