herceptin trials at md anderson

Ok, I'm alittle confused about the whole thing. My interpretation of it is that they are using herceptin and chemo before surgery and getting a better response. Well, my question is that people like me getting it AFTER surgery and not WITH a chemo but having negative PET scans and mri's am I on the same playing field as them for long term success? Or do they even know what the long term is for those women either? They make it sound so wonderful, but these women can't be very far out themselves. I asked Dr Buzdar that when he was in Texas for the Cure mag. seminar. He really couldn't answer me. I asked him if there was anything else I could do to prevent a recurrence. He said no. My concern that if the combination is better then why not get the combo now before any recurrence? I know that would be overkill but is that what we all need? Just wondering what everyone elses take on that is?

Michele - Did you never get any chemo AT ALL? Or just that now you're on herceptin post chemo as a stand alone (which is the protocol for the trials). The women at MD Anderson (which, as far as I know, was the only neoadjuvent study that is going on right now) knew their response to herceptin because they could monitor the tumor shrinkage and see. Just like any woman that gets chemo prior to surgery and often they see at least some shrinkage. With people like you & me, they "cut" all the visible cancer out, so there's no way of knowing whether chemo, herceptin, or anything is working for us, until we go XXX number of years without a recurrance. Even then, it's just an assumption. I don't think we know LT survival stats for herceptin, especially for early stage bc, as it's only been approved for Stage IV for 6 years. But we DO know that it makes a difference for many women that are Stage IV, and the early results are promising for earlier stages.