Confused about HER2/neu

JoanQuilts

I am triple negative, which, I understand, is bad.  I was under the impression that it was GOOD to be HER2/neu positive because it was "bad" to be triple negative, including the negative HER2/neu status.  Then I read that having a positive HER2/neu positive status means that the cancer is one sign of a more aggressive cancer.

 Can someone please clarify?  Which is the "better" NER2/neu status?   Is it better to be triple positive, or ER/PR+ and HER2 negative?

Racy

That is a great explanation hillck!

lago

Joan, triple negative is a fast growing aggressive cancer. Thing is chemo works best of fast growing grade 3 cancers. Typically most triple negatives, if they were to recur/mets usually happens in the first 3 years. After that the probability goes way down… much further than triple positive or hormone positive for recurrence. So you see that can be a good side of triple negative.

To be honest there is no good or bad. It all sucks. There are plenty of women stage I, no nodes, hormone + HER2- that get mets. Then there are women that were triple negative and are surviving decades.