HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post

al from Canada · 11-23-2005, 10:08 PM

It sounds like the honeymoon is over for herceptin....a fall from grace? I think that a lot of this is a predictable backlash from the "too good to be true" phenomena. This has been touted as the greatest cancer therapeutic discovery in 20 years, we should expect scepticism! Most people don't like change and are extremely resistant to it...doctors included. Herceptin is more than change, it is a therapeutic revolution! In the absence of further clinical data, we may have to wait until the pendulum swings back the other way before it gains wider acceptance. The only question is which is going to happen first, the natural progression of events due to clinical results or a patient backlash an a wider acceptance of antecdotal evidence? Emotionally, we would all like the pendulum to come back at light speed and with greater force; those of us with cancer are more willing to play the odds based on "less scientific" analysis.

This brings me back to an earlier rant: if you are stage 3a or b, and look at survival stats (which is a barometer that scientists use), is 2 - 3 years of herceptin playing the odds, wishful thinking or a calculated risk?? At the risk of sounding paranoid, I have to wonder how much of this backlash is a result of a third party (cost / benefit analysis) intervention?

It all comes down to taking charge of your medical treatment plan; if you can't take charge at least become an active partner in your medical destiny then you are into gambling or wishful thinking. If you think that herceptin should be part of your medical solution, speak up and arm yourself with empiracle data. If there is an absence of empiracle data, use what you can and reduce the argument to simple math: the chances of surviving this disease for 5 years is less than 50%, the chances of getting herceptin induced heart failure is 2%....do the math!

Attached are some interesting stats:

[Sorry Alaska Angel but in Alaska in 2001, the number of deaths will represent 50% of diagosed cases where in California the death to new cases ratio is .20 (20%). It would take a lot of digging and variables to equalize to discover what accounts for this difference?? BUT, I'm convinced, that all of us have some level of influence in the results.

Last word before I start to bore: I have to wonder what would happen if all of the 30 - 40 patients affected by their oncologist's (year 2) decision had a heart felt meeting with him or her, (armed with data of course) to express their concerns? First I would ask: hospital x does and you don't....please explain.....I get emotional about this because I can't help but imagine my response should my Linda get this "good" news. -Al

11-23-2005, 10:08 PM	#15
al from Canada Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 722	It sounds like the honeymoon is over for herceptin....a fall from grace? I think that a lot of this is a predictable backlash from the "too good to be true" phenomena. This has been touted as the greatest cancer therapeutic discovery in 20 years, we should expect scepticism! Most people don't like change and are extremely resistant to it...doctors included. Herceptin is more than change, it is a therapeutic revolution! In the absence of further clinical data, we may have to wait until the pendulum swings back the other way before it gains wider acceptance. The only question is which is going to happen first, the natural progression of events due to clinical results or a patient backlash an a wider acceptance of antecdotal evidence? Emotionally, we would all like the pendulum to come back at light speed and with greater force; those of us with cancer are more willing to play the odds based on "less scientific" analysis. This brings me back to an earlier rant: if you are stage 3a or b, and look at survival stats (which is a barometer that scientists use), is 2 - 3 years of herceptin playing the odds, wishful thinking or a calculated risk?? At the risk of sounding paranoid, I have to wonder how much of this backlash is a result of a third party (cost / benefit analysis) intervention? It all comes down to taking charge of your medical treatment plan; if you can't take charge at least become an active partner in your medical destiny then you are into gambling or wishful thinking. If you think that herceptin should be part of your medical solution, speak up and arm yourself with empiracle data. If there is an absence of empiracle data, use what you can and reduce the argument to simple math: the chances of surviving this disease for 5 years is less than 50%, the chances of getting herceptin induced heart failure is 2%....do the math! Attached are some interesting stats: [Sorry Alaska Angel but in Alaska in 2001, the number of deaths will represent 50% of diagosed cases where in California the death to new cases ratio is .20 (20%). It would take a lot of digging and variables to equalize to discover what accounts for this difference?? BUT, I'm convinced, that all of us have some level of influence in the results. Last word before I start to bore: I have to wonder what would happen if all of the 30 - 40 patients affected by their oncologist's (year 2) decision had a heart felt meeting with him or her, (armed with data of course) to express their concerns? First I would ask: hospital x does and you don't....please explain.....I get emotional about this because I can't help but imagine my response should my Linda get this "good" news. -Al Attached Thumbnails __________________ Primary care-giver to and advocate for Linda, who passed away April 27, 2006. Last edited by al from Canada; 11-23-2005 at 10:26 PM..