[Debbie L.]

Tonya, you are "of this group" in ways much stronger than HER2 status. Please continue to be a part of this community. (you made me laugh with your comment of "crossing over", it sounded like a Star Wars quote).

On that topic, I am hearing some oncs questioning whether they should treat based on biopsies of mets, vs. on pathology details of the primary cancer. Some are saying things like (somewhat paraphrased) "if there ever was a positive ERPR (or HER2), it's worth treating that target and watching for response, even if the mets biopsy now tests negative."

But back to your question. There are many studies trying to figure out the question you asked about bone strengtheners (bisphosphonates). The answer, thus, is that we don't really know yet for sure, but it seems that they should all behave the same although perhaps some are stronger than others.

Zometa is more-commonly used nowadays, for those with bone mets -- and those with bone mets are more likely to be ERPR+, thus it is more-studied in that population. I think that part of the reason for the switch to Zometa (from Aredia/pamidronate) was that it could be administered over a shorter time period? Please correct me if I'm wrong, those of you in the know.

The few studies that have looked at prevention of recurrence have been with Zometa, I believe. But that doesn't mean that other drugs in the same class would not have the same effect (or not). The studies have been done in those with ERPR+ disease but again, that does not mean there may not be the same effect in ERPR- disease. It's just not known. Not much help, I know, to tell you there are no answers.

Is your onc promoting one over the other, for you?

Debbie Laxague