[saleboat]

I think that is one of the ‘games’ of cancer survivorship—how do we make rationale decisions and not let fear lead us. For instance, there was a time when if someone on this board had suggested that I drink the Adriamycin in order to increase my chances of remaining cancer-free by one-half of one percent, I probably would have tried it. Even now, I think about all the extra body parts that I have (appendix, gall-bladder, tonsils) that maybe should go, just to diminish whatever chance there is that they could get cancer. And for those body parts that are of questionable use, (uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes) maybe they need to go too? Then there’s the whole category of ‘redundant parts’-- those organs that come in pairs (kidneys and lungs, most notably) that if one were removed, would reduce my risk of cancer by one-half. (Please note, this is a satire of my cancer-phobic mind)


So yes, we all have to grapple with the available information. And right now, there are thousands of women who count themselves lucky to have had Herceptin in the adjuvant setting, but wonder if maybe they’re not getting too much of a good thing. And because there is a trial in Europe that is looking at the effectiveness of 2 years, well, it sows seeds of doubt in our minds that the one-year that is standard in the U.S. is enough. So we feel caught in the middle, and our Oncs only have the slow, self-correcting grind that is Science to guide them.


This stuff ain't easy.


Jen