a good thought

Pure
Pure Member Posts: 1,796

10 years ago my husband was diagnosed with stage 3 colon cancer. At that time they did not do the whole 3a,3b,3c staging as they do now-just satge 1,2 3, or 4.

They told us had a 60% chance of survival.

What they have since found out that in today's day and age  he would be considered 3a and have an 84% chance of srvival.

My point being they told us at the time it was 60% but it was really 84% but at the time they were working off old odds and didn't know that. 

My thought is the same for us-they think are odds for stage 3 are at a certain percent but in 10 years I bet they discover our odds were and have been way higher.

Colon and BC have the most money put into research so they have the most improvement in survival etc.

Anyway just a positive thought!

Comments

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited December 2009

    Was his colon cancer found with colonoscopy?

  • SpunkyGirl
    SpunkyGirl Member Posts: 1,568
    edited December 2009

    Pure,

    You and I have a lot in common.  There's not that many couples out there who have both gone on this journey. Your observations are so true!  I'm sure the BC stats are not really meaningful now. I don't think they are tracking recurrences with as much diligence as they should.  And, I noticed that most of the statistics still don't account for the impact that Herceptin has had for HER+ BC.  That's why it's so important not to focus on statistics.  The art of dealing with cancer is in doing what you can, ignoring what you can't change, and focusing on living.  With that being said, most women will never go through this right after having a child.  You are a blessing to us all.

    Hugs

    Bobbie

  • karen1956
    karen1956 Member Posts: 6,503
    edited December 2009

    Pure....thanks for sharing....wishing your hubby many more 10 years.....and you too.

  • Gitane
    Gitane Member Posts: 1,885
    edited December 2009

    Hi Pure,  Just wanted to share that colon cancer runs in my husband's family.  His father and brother both had it.  You are right, we can't know anything from the stats, we are each of us individuals with our own special qualities.  All the best to both you and your husband. Hugs, G.

  • AnacortesGirl
    AnacortesGirl Member Posts: 1,758
    edited December 2009

    I really like that thought and I think you have a excellent example of how the stats used today are so dated because they are based on history - not where we are now.

    Another thought those goes through my mind is related to sports.  You know how the guys sit around and, starting with the pre-season, talk about which team is the powerhouse, who's going to have the best record, etc.  By the end of the season all those facts they gathered and their predictions they made don't mean squat. 

    I'm going for rookie of the year in my house.

  • KerryMac
    KerryMac Member Posts: 3,529
    edited December 2009

    If you just think of what new advances there have been in the last ten years - Taxanes, AI's, Zometa, Herceptin, increased chemo dosages because of Neulasta shots......

    There is no way that having all of these weapons available to us hasn't increased our potential to survive. Keeping in mind, that even without these, using the old stats, more of us would make it than not.

  • Pure
    Pure Member Posts: 1,796
    edited December 2009

    Spunky Girl:)-Thank you...I hope your hanging in there. I know how hard it is to take care of someone ill. Did you guys go on your trip.

    ShanaGirl-He couldn't go to the bathroom for one week so they ran tests-found nothing- and then finally ended up in the er. I remember them saying they needed to open him up. They didn't mention cancer. Anyway they found an apple size tumour growing INWARD. He had 3 nodes.

    The stats are so skewed-I have really learned a lot from this site-like some people don't get the care they deserve upfront or they refuse treatment. Then you have hers not being seperated in the stats, triple negs are worked in, also those who get rads aren't worked into some stat calculators and 20% of those that refuse rads get dis mets. That is not worked in either. Then of course, there is zometa and lets face it-if the initial studies are correct that could bring stage 3 folks down another 12 to 14%.

    I know stats don't mean much bla bla bla but I will tell you if 10 years ago the doc said Hey Jen Jeffs has an 83% chance of beating this versus 60% I might have handled it so much better. 

    Back then they didn't study your tumour and create a treatment plan-they just threw a huge amount of chemo at you. These days they study the tumour charecteristics-which I find amazing and design treatment around that.

    Anyway-discovering that yesterday  I think it just proves our stats are really wrong and most of us on this board will be just fine and alive.

  • kimber3006
    kimber3006 Member Posts: 586
    edited December 2009

    A very good thought.  I keep wondering whenever I see stats how many variables & relatively recent advances haven't been factored in.  I've never accepted the given rate for myself.  I love it when they look at my bloodwork and tell me I'm too healthy to be there.  Yes, ma'm, I think so too and thanks for saying so.  :)

     Pure - Do you have the study on Zometa you've been talking about?  I saw something about treatment for ER+ once (outside of bone mets), but I haven't been able to find it again.

  • KerryMac
    KerryMac Member Posts: 3,529
    edited December 2009
    You have to remember with stats as well, that they include everyone, regardless of age, other health concerns, treatment, everything. They really don't relate to you as an individual.
  • Gitane
    Gitane Member Posts: 1,885
    edited December 2009

    Kerry,  You are so right.

Categories