OncotypeDX- Slides

Gitane

OncotypeDX- Slides

Gitane

If you have a minute please look at slide #106 in this slide set.  Instead of looking at the numbers on the right (5 year statistics) look at the events at the bottom of the slide.



http://www.slideshare.net/fovak/breast-cancer-981022



This is a slide about Distant Disease Free Survival, NSABP B-20 for Intermediate RS.



Chemo + Tamox. 9 events/89 = 10% relapsed

Tamox. 8 events/45 = about 18% relapsed



That seems like a big difference to me.

wallycat

I am not sure I know how to interpret any of it....

the previous slides show a 1% difference in chemo + tam versus tamox alone for both the 1-17 RS onco and similar 1% for 18-30 onco...but I am bad with math and stats.

I emailed the slide link to my onco and we'll see if he responds with comments....

Seabee

Big difference, but a very small sample. I was most intereseted in slide 52, which cites risk rates for types a & b, Her2+ and triple negative, but specifically excludes lobular (most of which has characteristics like luminal a). Why? Why?

Gitane

Ya, Seabee, a VERY small sample.  I hope the TaylorX trial is based on more than this!  I'll look again at slide 52.  G.

Kleenex

Man, cancer has really brought out the nerd in us, hasn't it? Guess it's something of a necessity. I, too, have now perused these slides. I'd LOVE to have the person who created them available to hear the speech that went along with them - and then we could ask QUESTIONS!! Oh well.

Coleen

Gitane

Well, shoot. I just looked at the bottom of slide 52.  How typical is that!!  "Doesn't include lobular.... "  or "Includes only classical loblular ...."  If I had a dollar for every time I've read that in studies I'd be wealthy.  Even though we're thousands of women, the second most common BC, we don't enter into the big picture it seems.

Who me? A nerd?  Ya, guilty as charged.  Or maybe just obsessed. Or both.  

mymountain

That was a HUGE presentation without any direct refrence to lobular.  I have been on the worry wagon about not having had any chemo, but looking at those slides, I am reassured that low/moderate scores may only benefit by as little as 1% by the addition of CMF.  Am I reading that right?

MM

Seabee

Yes, you are reading it right. In my case it was 0%. Fat chance I'd do chemo just for fun.

It's normal to worry occasionally about not doing what so many of us do, but when I review the facts of my particular case, I get over it quickly.

hlya

I join the TailorXtrial,  the nurse told me the key objective of this trial is not to see the DRFS for the low score/high score group, but the intermediate group.  Guess they need more samples to study

Anonymous

Hi LuA,

I sent you a private message.

Take care,

Susan

ibeejojo

Hi ladies.....4 yr ILC survivor here.....The stats you are reading, as it was explained to me, indicate that chemo would be less than a 1% benefit if you scored low on the onco and therefore the risks far outweighed the benefits of chemo. The "little pills" work better for us than the chemo.  I consider this a blessing and the onco was brand new when I was dx'd....onc didn't even mention it.  I did run into Dr. Susan Love and she told me to cancel the chemo and have the test....God bless that woman!.....God bless us all..and he does....lol.  JO

JannaC

Dear Mountain,

 I too, have been on the worry wagon about not having chemo, my onco score was 19.  Also, so many of you with my diag had single or dbl mast.  I had a lumpectomy with dirty margins and then had a rexcision, with clear margins.  Radiation and now am on Femara.  I guess we just move on and stay on top of it.