2014 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium

Options
124»

Comments

  • Fourminor
    Fourminor Member Posts: 354
    edited December 2014

    Interestingly I had oncotype of 20 and was advised to do CMF chemo, but I had an allergic reaction to the 5FU. Never got to the C. A few days later, on my way home from work last week I ruptured an ovarian cyst. Bad week.

    First MO said, OK, lets just go to Tamoxifen. I asked about the SOFT trial and she said no added benefit for me. Got a second opinion--MO also hesitant to give chemo again, but asked me to get a third opinion. That doc suggested AI with ovarian suppression. I wonder--i a not quite the low risk profile because they were going to give me chemo. Also I had a baby at 43, almost 4 years ago, got pregnant no problem, no complications. Periods were regular until a year ago when they have been varying between 26-36 days, but otherwise have come every month. My mom said she went through menopause at 57. If I had been able to do the chemo, would I still be premenopausal? I don't know, but I guess it could be possible.

    Not especially looking forward to the side effects!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Fourminor
    Fourminor Member Posts: 354
    edited December 2014

    kayb--I'm convinced of Lustig's theory on sugar because when I read abdominal ultrasound only about 10% of patients have a normal looking liver. 90% have a fatty liver, which is exactly what Lustig said sugar would do.

    Yesterday was talking with my PCP and she said she would go on the assumption that sugar is evil.

    My own thoughts at times are that whatever is bad for the environment, always turns out to be bad for us, since we are not separate from it. Plastic? Ruining the oceans, bad for us. Air pollution? Ditto. Meat production and consumption? Same. Eating at the top of the food chain concentrates pollutants. Organically raised versus commercial? Organic def better for the environment, but the environment can only support so much meat production no matter what. So it should not be a main constituent of our diets even if we choose better quality.

    So I'm prioritizing sugar out of my diet, but also keeping an eye on how much dairy and meat I can eliminate too. I figure if I'm going on AI or Tamox, this may help mitigate weight gain.

    4

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PoohBear-61
    PoohBear-61 Member Posts: 263
    edited December 2014

    Hi Rozem ( fellow canuck Happy)

    I still remain slightly concerned when the study say's the high risk women were the ones that "needed" or had chemo ....

    In my case I was "offered" (chemo+ Tamox) OR (Zoladex + tamox).

    So those that chose NOT to do chemo fall in what category ? that's my concern :)

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • voraciousreader
    voraciousreader Member Posts: 7,496
    edited December 2014

    Pooh....I think the results from the TailorX study should be arriving soon and maybe that info will add more info to the puzzle. Perhaps then, it might give us an idea on whose risk of recurrence is significantly higher. With that additional info, I think it might make the decision to do o/s and an AI easier...


    I noticed your Oncotype score is 18...on the cusp of the dreaded "intermediate" range. Once TailorX results are known, I think MOs will have better guidence. Until then, as SOFT has shown, only younger patients who are at high risk of recurrence benefit from o/s. I guess for you, for now.....there is no right or wrong answer.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • voraciousreader
    voraciousreader Member Posts: 7,496
    edited December 2014

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/questioni...

    Good carbs vs bad carbs??!! ...this study speaks to what I previously said!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PoohBear-61
    PoohBear-61 Member Posts: 263
    edited December 2014

    Thanks V ...I had forgotten about the TailorX study .......!!!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • voraciousreader
    voraciousreader Member Posts: 7,496
    edited December 2014

    pooh....as they say...."stay tuned...."

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • voraciousreader
    voraciousreader Member Posts: 7,496
    edited December 2014

    pooh....IMHO....my crystal ball is telling me that the TailorX results will be mixed as well. Keep in mind that the idea of TailorX was to get more patients out of the dreaded intermediate area...I think they will accomplish that goal for a few....but for many....I think it still might be too early, not unlike SOFT to see those late recurrences....so that might complicate the results....


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • voraciousreader
    voraciousreader Member Posts: 7,496
    edited December 2014

    http://projects.registerguard.com/apf/tech/biocept...



    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • voraciousreader
    voraciousreader Member Posts: 7,496
    edited December 2014

    http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/SABCS/...


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • voraciousreader
    voraciousreader Member Posts: 7,496
    edited December 2014

    http://breastcancer-news.com/2014/12/17/sudy-finds...


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • voraciousreader
    voraciousreader Member Posts: 7,496
    edited December 2014

    http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnew...



    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited December 2014


    voracious.... I agree.  I believe that the TaylorX study will just be as muddy.  The Oncotype studies are more defined.  TaylorX is just too large.  Also, Oncotype studies backed into the information.  So disappointed with most studies at San Antonio.  Just more of we have another pill that costs $10,000.00 per month but it only adds one month of life.  Good grief.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Categories