Chemo and Breast Cancer

bluedahlia

Oh, and BTW, coffee enemas everyday would eventually make one dependent on enemas to have a bowel movement, forever.  That can't be a good thing.  This thread is hidden as well, in case you were not aware.

thats-life-

My point dear girl, is that we all have our reasons to decline or choose chemo, but we may not be so vocal about the reasons. I would appreciate it if you and your friends take note of that. There is no need for bogus stats. Evidence based stats are there for the seeing if one chooses to look. But out of respect for those who hold chemo as their lifeline, we refrain from the scaremongering. If an occasional person drops in with a passionate plea against chemo, gentle guidance would be sufficient. the nastiness should be left where it belongs. In the person who is motivated to hurt others.

impositive

thats-life-,  There are very few people like you on these boards.  I'm glad you are still here to offer your wisdom, advice and bravery.  It's refreshing and what we all need.  Just wanted to say thanks 

thats-life-

Oh and BTW ..what is this facination with coffee enemas?...nice to know you pop into my thread!...though i must say i only drop in to yours about once a month these days...mainly to see how Suzieq is going....I hope you have picked up some tips along the way to help you on your journey.

bluedahlia

I had a small ILC with no nodes involved.  Even if I didn't have PD, chemo was not warranted.  Some gals here are HER2+++ or er.pr-.  Chemo is their ONLY choice, if they want to survive the beast.

bluedahlia

Thats-life, I haven't picked up anything worth writing home about.

thats-life-

Could your 'best friend's mother who is in breast cancer research' provide some evidence based statistics on your her2+ comment as well please?

bluedahlia

Sure, I'll ask when I next see her.

thats-life-

cool. I love a good personal opinion/testamonial...i base all my decisions on them

Leia

Titan, you're one of the few who likes my posts. A minority.

But you are right as well. About my asssertion that "chemo kills." You're right, it doesn't kill everyone. Immediately. That was an overstatement. I apologize. You said that you had chemo and are still alive. That's great. 

Although, for my part, from what I have read (and I have read about this topic, extensively) chemo does not work. For most people. In the long run. And by now they are discovering that pharmacists who handle chemo drugs are now getting cancer, themselves. While they tell us that we should have this "treatment?"

I just know, for myself, that I will never do chemo.  Surgery, I will do. That makes sense to me. 

Some earlier poster said something about what's the choice, a chemo death or a natural death. I choose the natural death. But then, I choose a healthy life, with the D3 the FOCC and a low stress life style. And when I finally do die, as we all do, it won't be by wasting away on Chemo, as I have truly seen so many do in my personal life. It saddens me.  

Hindsfeet

Although, a few of us are chemophobic for whatever reason, we still appreciate and believe in a lot of conventional medicine.

Most of us who come to the alternative threads go to doctors. We have had lumpectomies, biopsies, mastectomies and do annual screenings. We are willing to take medicine that we KNOW will benefit us. I am open to herception if I learn that I need it. It does seem to be a game changer. I won't take chemo because there is no absolute evidence it cures, and it's known to cause future cancers. Chemo to me is risky. I just don't feel comfortable taking that kind of risk. Apparently there are those here at bco who have taken chemo without side effects.. If ever I was at a later stage and someone here can prove to me that it cures cancer then I will be open to considering it. Almost all those I've known who have taken chemo died, or now dying. I do have one friend, whom was given 3 to 6 months (she had been on chemo for about 9 months).. They told her if she took it she might live up to 6 months. I suggested if the chemo wasn't going to cure her, as she was extrememly ill from it to get off chemo and live. She did early last February. Since then her tumor has shrunk, and recently, her doctor said her cancer is in remission. Almost one year later, she is alive and well. She has turned to alternative medicine.

BTW...from what I've read coffee enemas are for detoxing. 2007, 2008 dx dcis highgrade, Jan 2011, mucinious stage 1, Sept 2011, IDC high grade her2+ (3+)er + pr+
Diagnosis: 10/4/2011, IDC, Grade 3, ER+/PR+, HER2+

Anonymous

I just learned that chemotherapeutics are bought and sold by oncs.  Apparently,  for oncs to support their practice  they purchase drugs from wholesalers, mark the price up, and sell them to patients or insurers.  And...about ½  the revenue of an onc's office come from chemo.

Can someone properly explain how this works? Is their a financial incentive at work in determining what cancer drugs are being prescribed? And, please don't answer if you don't know for sure. I want to understand how this marketing strategy works from people who know what they are talking about. Thanks.     

bluedahlia

That's-Life.  My DD's best friend's mother is  Dr. Lois Shepherd and is one of the members conducting this study.

I don't know about the U.S. but here in Canada, oncs do not make a profit on chemo.

Belinda44

Leia, you write, ".......chemo does not work."   Uhhhhhh, trying telling that to Olivia Newton John or Edie Falco or Linda Ellerbee.  Oh, and Betty Ford who recently passed away at age 93, had chemo back in the 70s (and she had three positive lymph nodes).  I'm amazed when people come here and make statements like those you made/make regarding chemotherapy.  Amazed....

thats-life-

BD: yes,  We have discussed Metformin, and the trials on the Alt thread..I think one of the study links posted there showed that you can get the same results, if not better results, with a low energy diet..JLW and Heidi explained it well. Im so grateful there are women here who are willing to share and discuss their information.. and help each other work towards optimum health in our situation.

And on the subject of those with early stage triple neg...chemo is not their 'only chance'...a low fat low carb diet can reduce the chance of recurrence for these women by up to 42%.

bluedahlia

I think it's gonna amount to a hill of beans.  These diabetes drugs as well as high blood pressure drugs were investigated ad nauseum for PD.  Didn't do much.  JMO.

Conventional treatments are still tops in my book.  Do you think I would have had 2 holes drilled into my skull while I was awake if alternatives could have helped me? I spent thousands on chinese herbs and medicine with no results, as well as vitamines and minerals (another MLM scheme).

Anonymous

Belinda, how do you know that those women you mention would not have been fine after being treated with surgery alone?  If they believe that they were helped by chemo, that's great, but that doesn't come close to proving that they were helped by chemo.

Even back in the bad old days, a significant percentage of women with early breast cancer were cured with surgery alone. 

Was there a significant jump in the percentage of women who went on to live long cancer free lives once chemo as adjuvant treatment became widespread in women whose cancer had not spread?  If you know of something like that, please share that information.

The only significant jump in survival statistics that I am aware of came with the addition of Tamoxifen to treatment programs. 

Herceptin is too new to show any significant change in long term survival statistics since women given it as adjuvant treatment for early stage cancers are just now beginning to get to the point considered to be long term.

bluedahlia

BTW, those chinese herbs were wicked to boil down and drink.  Like drinking mud.  Maybe that's what contributed to my breast cancer.  One never knows.  Bark of tree, my a$$!

Anonymous

Bluedahlia, it sounds like you've had a rough time. Do you take any supplements now?

bluedahlia

Tumeric and Vitamin D3 and B12.  That's it.

Ang7

princess said "I just learned that chemotherapeutics are bought and sold by oncs and about 1/2 the revenue of an oncs office comes from chemo."

Would you please let me know your source for this info?

Thanks.

Anonymous

Ang7 I don't trust my sources. That's why I wanted someone who knows for sure to respond.  

sweetbean

princess,

I don't think that is true.  I think it is an urban legend.  Doctors don't buy any other drugs (like antibiotics) and then turn around and sell them to the patient.  Why would that happen with chemo?  I just don't believe it.  I also don't believe that a significant percentage of early stage women were cured with just surgery (in the days before chemo.)  Some were cured, sure, but before chemo, cancer was mostly a death sentence.  Listen, I'm all for alternative treatments, but I also believe that chemo is effective.  It certainly was with me.  

I have to say, the person who used the most scare tactics with me was my chiropractor, who told me I would die young if I took chemo.  He put a TON of pressure on me to not have chemo.   I researched it for a few days and just couldn't find any overwhelming evidence that breast cancer could be cured with alternatives alone.  I found a few success stories here and there, but nothing to hang my life on.

Anonymous

sweetbean, I want someone who knows for sure to answer.

Just out of curiosity...why would you ask your chiropractor about chemo? That makes no sense to me. That's like asking your dentist about your broken leg. (lol)  ETA You should have spoken to an alternative/integrative oncologist.

AlaskaAngel

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/752801 

This is a difficult topic and I have a hard time with it myself, but here is a reasonably good source to consider. I hope you can access the article okay.  It is from the October 31 New England Journal of Medicine.  This is the title if you need to search for it, or register with medscape, or whatever:

Private Oncology Practices Blamed for Ongoing Drug Shortages

by

Zosia Chustecka

- A.A.

Anonymous

Thank you. A.A.

AlaskaAngel

It is controversial so everyone has to read that article and also this one by the same author, and try to define "private oncologists" vs "community oncologists", etc.  Essentially the author is presenting both sides, with this second one being the rebutttal offered by the Community Oncologists Alliance.

Community Oncologists Not to Blame for Drug Shortages

Zosia Chustecka

November 8, 2011

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753099 

Beesie

Patmom, you asked:  "Was there a significant jump in the percentage of women who went on to live long cancer free lives once chemo as adjuvant treatment became widespread in women whose cancer had not spread? If you know of something like that, please share that information."

Are you familiar with the SEER cancer statistics?  Here are some links to the SEER breast cancer survival stats.  I think you have to press "submit" on the webpage to get the table - hopefully that works; if not, you can pull up the data from the SEER home page by selecting "Breast Cancer" and then selecting the table/information that you want to see:  http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2008/browse_csr.php

First is:  http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2008/browse_csr.php?section=4&page=sect_04_table.10.html    This is table 4.10 Annual Death Rates.  It shows a steady decline in annual breast cancer deaths (per 100,000 population) since the start of this data in 1975.

Next is: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2008/browse_csr.php?section=4&page=sect_04_table.15.html     This is table 4.15 Relative Survival by Year of Diagnosis. It shows that breast cancer survival rates have been increasing steadily.  For example the 10 year survival rate for those diagnosed between 1975 and 1979 was 62.6%.  The most recently available 10 year survival rate, for those diagnosed in 1998, was 83.6% - a really significant improvement.

Is any of that specifically related to chemo?  No.  Nor can we name a specific person and say that her survival is due to chemo.  We just don't know.  In many cases surgery alone would be sufficient.  But in some cases it wouldn't be.

Chemo is prescribed in many situations where there is no evidence of mets (i.e not Stage IV) but where there is a high risk that some cancer cells may in fact have already moved (prior to surgery) into the body. The number of cancer cells that have escaped are simply too small to be detected. I read in Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book that it's estimated that "20% - 30% of those with negative nodes have some spread elsewhere". The percentage would obviously be higher for those with positive nodes. Chemo is given in these high risk (of mets) cases in an attempt to kill off these few random cancer cells before they have a chance to take hold and start to mulitply and develop into mets.  And chemo appears to be successful in this regard.

"Among women aged under 50 whose cancer had already spread to the local lymph glands at the time of surgery (node-positive), some months of chemotherapy typically prevented about 11 deaths during the next 10 years for every 100 women treated. But, among younger women with no evidence of disease spread, the benefits of chemotherapy were also substantial -- about seven fewer deaths per 100 treated.
Chemotherapy produced a small, but real, improvement in survival -- of about two to three lives saved per 100 -- for women in their 50s and 60s whose cancer was either node-positive or node-negative."  http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/affe2.htm 

.

"For middle-aged women with ER-positive disease (the commonest type of breast cancer), the breast cancer mortality rate throughout the next 15 years would be approximately halved by 6 months of anthracycline-based chemotherapy with a combination such as FAC or FEC) followed by 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen. For, if mortality reductions of 38% (age 50 years) and 20% (age 50-69 years) from such chemotherapy were followed by a further reduction of 31% from tamoxifen in the risks that remain, the final mortality reductions would be 57% and 45%, respectively (and, the trial results could well have been somewhat stronger if there had been full compliance with the allocated reatments). Overall survival would be comparably improved, since these treatments have relatively small effects on mortality from the aggregate of all other causes." 

http://pingpong.ki.se/public/pp/public_courses/course08879/published/1314771039456/resourceId/5068359/content/Breast%20cancer%20-Lancet%20chemotherapy%20and%20hormonal%20therapy.pdf

.

Of course chemo doesn't benefit everyone.  Many women are "cured" by surgery alone.  And some women develop mets despite having had chemo.  Unfortunately at this point medical science is not yet all the way there on separating those who truly need and would benefit from chemo from those who don't need chemo and/or wouldn't benefit from it. There's no doubt that at this time, chemo is given to more women than just those who truly do benefit. They're working on that.  But in the meantime, the evidence is clear that some women do benefit from chemo and that chemo really does "cure" some women.  There are many women who would otherwise develop mets and die of this disease who do not develop mets because of chemo.  That's a proven fact. And that's why chemo remains the standard of care for those who are high risk to develop mets. 

Edited for typos only. 

Ang7

Beesie~

You rock.

Thank you for taking the time to educate others with your posts.

Anonymous

Ang7 + Sweetbean, in case you did not see them earlier. the answers to my questions are in these articles that AlaskaAngel posted. It is from the October 31 New England Journal of Medicine.Just google them.

Private Oncology Practices Blamed for Ongoing Drug Shortages

 Zosia Chustecka

"Unlike other drugs, chemotherapeutics are bought and sold in the doctors' office," they explain. This system evolved some 40 years ago, when "only oncologists would handle such toxic substances, and the drugs were relatively cheap. A business model evolved in which oncologists bought low and sold high to support their practice and maximize financial margins....Many private oncologists make a great deal of money by selecting therapies on the basis of cost," he explained. The point that "oncologists would make extremely little money if it weren't for the incentive to sell the chemo - that's largely true... In recent decades, oncology drug prices have skyrocketed, and today more than half the revenue of an oncology office may come from chemotherapy sales, which boost oncologist salaries and support expanding hospital cancer centers," the authors explain."

Also read.

Community Oncologists Not to Blame for Drug Shortages

 Zosia Chustecka