|
Vi said: From Jackie's information, ....the presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and positive estrogen receptors (ER) were found as independent unfavorable prognostic factors for relapse-free (HR 2.09, p=0.007; HR 1.50, p=0.021, respectively) and overall survival (HR 2.15, p=0.006; HR 1.41, p=0.05, respectively) while tumor size, grade and nodal status had no prognostic significance...
that's interesting because I had LVI and positive ER, and had no Herceptin. For those who had Herceptin, it appears to be more favorable.
Vi, the above is talking specifically about LATE relapse, after 10 years of no recurrence. The factors that increase risk for late relapse are not necessarily the same as the ones that increase risk for early relapse and early relapse is more common. Note that in the above article, they started with 1038 women diagnosed with primary cancer and based the ending stats that you reference on 38 women who recurred after 10 years. Not a very big number. Less than 4% (I am not strong in math). Plus, they are saying that "early treatment" (ie: chemo and I assume Herceptin) has no effect on late recurrence. 'Still trying to get my head around that one but this was discussed recently in another thread and made sense when I read the explanation.
Anyway, just wanted to make sure you saw the distinction between risk for "regular" recurrence within the first 10 years, when risk is highest for all of us, and "late" recurrence or relapse, when there are fewer women recurring but the risk factors affecting that have changed a bit.
Sorry no time right now to find that thread. Does anyone else remember what it was called?
Debbie Laxague
|