Dying sooner because of having had cancer
Because we are HER2 and that is where so much of the research has been focused, I am optimistic that things are and will continue to improve for those of us who are here now.
However, I think it is still a different story for triple negatives especially, but also for other forms of bc.
I have to raise a question about numbers:
From DebbieL:
For one example, people recur who didn't have chemo - do they count the same as initial stage IV's? I've never heard the concept of chemo naivety making a difference to prognosis after mets diagnosis. It's more about what/whether the cancer responds, isn't it?
My question and response:
"It depends". Are we only talking ONLY about recurrence, or are we talking about the likelihood of dying sooner due to having cancer? For one thing, there is an unknown percentage of additional women who die sooner of "other diseases" brought on by cancer treatment -- especially due to things like heart disease with drugs like Adriamycin. There is also an unknown percentage who die from other effects brought on by treatment that are not even as yet acknowledged to have been related to or caused by the treatment for cancer. Those numbers would also, of course, be different for those who are treatment-naïve.
We also do not know which of the treatments that turn out to be ineffective actually may potentiate recurrence; i.e., they may not only not be effective, but also contribute to the recurrence.
Does anyone have the numbers for the people who fall into those categories?
A.A.
|