HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post - Very upset and confused by last topic posted

StephN · 05-23-2005, 12:53 AM

Hi Gals (and Guys!) -
It just seems to me that these stats, even as raw data, DO show that early Herceptin does have a positive affect on decreasing spread of our disease. Getting it early to wipe out enough cells so that our own immune systems can handle what is left makes enormous sense.

This way there is not such a big gamble that one has to take when mets occur and only then is Herceptin given with what I believe are lower positive results than those adjuvent studies show.
This is all from a "ballparking" of the stats as I have come across them and not from any statisticians' aligning of the two groups into a comparison. I would like to see this as part of someone's work, to verify and finetune my impression.

I can also base this feeling from my participation in a clinical trial for women with hard-to-treat mets, which I am one of 3 out of 20 participants who have made it past two years out of the treatment. Not all of them had the benefit of herceptin, but myself and a much younger patient are the farthest out from our last chemos and are both on Herceptin. That means that it is nearly a miracle that I am still alive when you take all these cases into consideration. It was postulated that NONE of us would have survived with only "standard" treatment with our aggressive disease. And few of us did anyway even with more aggressive treatment.
So, get that little devils while the "gettin is good" I say. Even with the new drugs, many of us on this board are having to flit from one to another to stay in the game somehow.

I also look forward to Lapatinib or any other drug to keep my cancer at bay.
Bottom line:
Once you have mets and are Her2 positive, you have to stay on Herceptin indefinitely, which may be avoided if it is given earlier and is effective.
MHO.

05-23-2005, 12:53 AM	#10
StephN Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Misty woods of WA State Posts: 4,128	Hi Gals (and Guys!) - It just seems to me that these stats, even as raw data, DO show that early Herceptin does have a positive affect on decreasing spread of our disease. Getting it early to wipe out enough cells so that our own immune systems can handle what is left makes enormous sense. This way there is not such a big gamble that one has to take when mets occur and only then is Herceptin given with what I believe are lower positive results than those adjuvent studies show. This is all from a "ballparking" of the stats as I have come across them and not from any statisticians' aligning of the two groups into a comparison. I would like to see this as part of someone's work, to verify and finetune my impression. I can also base this feeling from my participation in a clinical trial for women with hard-to-treat mets, which I am one of 3 out of 20 participants who have made it past two years out of the treatment. Not all of them had the benefit of herceptin, but myself and a much younger patient are the farthest out from our last chemos and are both on Herceptin. That means that it is nearly a miracle that I am still alive when you take all these cases into consideration. It was postulated that NONE of us would have survived with only "standard" treatment with our aggressive disease. And few of us did anyway even with more aggressive treatment. So, get that little devils while the "gettin is good" I say. Even with the new drugs, many of us on this board are having to flit from one to another to stay in the game somehow. I also look forward to Lapatinib or any other drug to keep my cancer at bay. Bottom line: Once you have mets and are Her2 positive, you have to stay on Herceptin indefinitely, which may be avoided if it is given earlier and is effective. MHO.