|
Esther
If everyone fed into these old wive's tales like oncologists dogma noone would ever look into whether new treatments and new ways of detecting recurrence earlier made any difference. The dogma is that once metastasis occurs all die inon average 2 years (except her2s who dieon average in one year)no matter what you do --should we just go along with that , not try anytiing? Those on this board wouldn't have been in the position they are in if ALL the doctors and researchers went along with the dogma (thank God some don't)
Someone posted an editorial by one of the leading breast oncologists at MDAnderson a while ago, citing that he had been surprised, even pre-Herceptin, at the unusual longevity of those diagnosed early with just minimal metastatic disease ie, as if finding it when the tumor burder was not overwhelming made likelihood of getting it to a proportion where the immune system or other means could successfully compete against it were possible. He suggested a clinical trial/research into it l, but I have not heard further.
Do we wait until people have pain from fracture, or, as in Lyn's case, encroachment on the spinal cord. There must be a better way, but if people keep mouthing/believing the dogma we will never get there!
Off my soapbox for now!
Lani
PS also metastases in bone wreak their damage by activating osteoclases (bone dissolving cells) and that can be slowed/prevented by bisphosphonates. Why let someones bones dissolve and break (a process that takes many months) when the process could be VERY VERY substantially slowed down And we don't know what we could do if we detected it even earlier!!!!
|
Threaded Mode