|
Michelle
Yesterday was a Herceptin day (3 wk schedule) and I was supposed to see my doctor as well. My doctor was chosen to attend a seminar at Fox Chase so I saw the Medical director of the cancer center instead. I had never spoken with him before. My year of Herceptin or rather my last dose will be June 16, 2006. One of the questions I was going to ask my onco was what his philosphy was on giving the second year of Herceptin. However, how many times can you speak at length with another doctor so I asked this guy. He said that soon there will be a joint clinical trial on comparing if less Herceptin gives just as much benefit as one year of Herceptin. The trial will be multi armed comparing taking Herceptin with just the taxol (not going beyond this) to going beyond another 3, 6 and 9 months. He did not know if this would include dense dosing as the A/C would naturally be given before the taxol. He said that there is a lot of discussion on whether one year is too much.
We discussed that one couldn't really ascertain that until the 2 year study results come out. What if they are 85% less chance of recurrence???!! Then what? He said that that is the "European" study and does not combine with a taxane. But, he did say that results could benefit a second year for folks like most of us on the website who could not take Herceptin with the taxane due to the study results not being out yet.
My onco is the director of clinical trials at our cancer center (working with Fox Chase and what they participate in as the cancer center if affiliated with Fox Chase). He is extremely smart, knowledgeble and aggressive. Since I did not see him this time, I scheduled to see him at my next 3 weeker (as I won't have seen him in about 12 weeks if I don't - saw a PA the last time). I am still going to ask him his philosphy but I won't be able to for another 3 weeks.
Just wanted you to know that there is a lot of thinking that one year of ADJUVANT Herceptin may be too much and that there will be clinical trials coming up to see the optimum timeframe. I certainly would like to have a second year but we also have to remember that since HERA is testing one year versus two years, we may be hung up on that second year and that it MUST be better. Maybe someone here knows why HERA chose to test that way. Is there data in a phase I trial or something else that shows that 2 years was better (and what was the status of the women using 2 years in a small phase I - node negative or positive? Stage I or Stage III?) I think you get my point. I do not know the answers to these questions but I wanted you to know what I learned yesterday. I was going to post what I learned tomorrow but ended up "chatting" with Gina this morning and told her all about it too so she may have alot of imput later.
I hope this helps. I will say one thing though Michelle, if you think it will help you - go get it. I never, ever doubt my intuition - not ever.
Love, Becky
|