Pros and cons between scientific and natural remedies

Hi Adrian,

I'm so sorry you've found a need to come here, but what a loving husband you are!  I also had triple negative, which is a scary thing indeed.  There is some good news, though, in that chemo is especially effective for TN, since chemo acts on rapidly-dividing cells, which are the nature of triple negative.  There is a lot of current research going on for triple negative, so we remain hopeful.  

Do you have more information about her particular information and treatment recommendations?  There's a TON of info on this site about a huge variety of topics, including both integrative and conventional medicine, and the vast majority of us choose an approach that includes elements of both.  

If you have specific questions, ask away.  Otherwise, you could just search or browse some of the topics already discussed.  The conventional vs alternative debate can get heated at times, but in the end it's an individual choice and you'll find support here no matter what. 

A word of caution, however - please be sure to look for credible sources in your research, and confirm what you find with multiple sources.  Be especially wary of advice you receive via private messages - valid and credible information should be able to stand the scrutiny of being posted in public.  I started a thread a while back regarding looking for credible resources, and I'll bump it up to help you get started.  

Welcome to the club, and please feel free to ask lots of questions and make yourself at home!  Best wishes to you and your wife.  When I was diagnosed, I was told to expect at least a full year of "Breast Cancer Life," and it was true.  You can get through this together, and you'll be surprised at the strength you both will be able to summon.  Best to you!

Right above is excellent advice from Member. For whoever's looking for credible sources of information, Timothy, a regular on this forum, would be the one to turn to.....

Using Timothy's information to complement all the excellent information that one can find here woud be a really wise choice, I think..... 

MJLToday: I seem to like this Respectful Insolence article that's in the thread you just posted. I appreciate respectufl Insolence in general, anyway.

Can you tell us more about the author of the article (as I never came across this website before)? Who is [stage name] Orac? Has he presented himself somewhere else as a professional researcher or scientist? I am just being curious. 

"it seems the conventional camp has already jumped on poor Adrian.."

 HUH?????  I must have missed something, as I don't see anything at all posted here that could even remotely be misconstrued as "jumping on poor Adrian."  

I'm hoping Adrian will come back and feel comfortable here and well supported during this difficult time, and I hope this thread won't turn into another us-versus-them thing.  That's not what this is about, Nanay.  Do you have a helpful reply for his question?

Integrative believer here.  If natural living alone prevented or cured breast cancer, I should never have gotten it in the first place -- except maybe for genetics & HRT.  However, IMO, conventional medicine is often way oversold (as are alternative protocols) and the SEs can be far more devastating.

Adrian, as you probably realize, triple negative breast cancer can be especially aggressive, and most of us agree that hitting any bc hard the first time is best.  I have seen some sad stories here from women who opted for lighter tx or even skipped recommended tx and regretted it.  OTOH, those who pursue only alternatives rarely hang around here to report their outcomes,.  Also, many only try alternatives when conventional medicine has nothing left to offer them, which only tells us that there probably is no miracle cure once bc metastisizes.

I personally believe there's a place for both conventional & CAM, and that the key is to find top notch practitioners who understand them both and know when an alternative protocol can be a benefit, and when it's foolish not to use the big guns that chemo & RT offer.  

Here's a website that might interest you & your wife:  http://www.integrativeonc.org/    Deanna

Deanna:

I wonder if the "big guns" would be able to make a difference in a tumor that is really aggressive? We all have in mind those 1 cm HER+ tumors that appear to be unstoppable, while some HUGE tumors sometimes don't even bother getting into the nodes................

This tells me that we need much more research to try and determine which cancer is likely to "advance", and which one is unlikely to become dangerous. 

Adrian, you should also post your question in the section for young women with breast cancer.  I know that fertility issues receive a lot of discussion there.

Thanks for this information, Cynthia.

 Edited after I reread the OP and saw she is Stage 3, triple negative. 

Hi Adrian,

I was in a very similar position when I was diagnosed last year at age 35. My doctors (at a top cancer center in the U.S.) insinuated that it would be a very bad idea for me NOT to do the recommended treatments (for me chemotherapy and tamoxifen for 5 (!) years).

I don't have the data at my fingertips, but I believe that studies show that women who become pregnant very soon after a cancer diagnosis do not do as well as those who wait awhile. Not sure why this is...perhaps because the mother's physical resources are going toward the baby instead of towards fighting the cancer.

I know that this must be a devastating blow to you and your wife, as it was to me. 

As a Stage 3, triple negative, your wife does not have to worry about pregnancy hormones affecting her cancer, however, she probably does have a fairly high recurrence risk, which is something to think about before going forward with having a child. I believe the highest risk is for the first 2 or 3 years after treatments, so some doctors recommend waiting that long to make sure the cancer does not spread. 

Many women do go on to have children after breast cancer and do just fine. I hope with all my heart this is the case for you (and me!)

Best of luck to you both!

Hi AlaskaAngel (love your state!),

I agree that no one should base their treatment decision on anecdotes (stories about those who survived/those who died.) 

Studies of very large populations of breast cancer patients have found that a higher percentage of those who do chemo survive, compared with those who don't do chemo. This is *especially* true for patients who are younger or are hormone negative.

Of course, we all lack crystal balls/fortune-telling abilities, so no one knows specifically which patients will be saved by chemo and which will get no benefit. However, if a person wants to have at least the possibility of being saved by chemo, they have to do the chemo.

For someone like Adrian's wife, who is 35, triple negative, and Stage 3 -- if you had 100 women like that, and none did chemo after surgery, only 40 would be alive 10 years later. However, if those 100 women did chemo, then 66 would be alive in 10 years. So 26 of those 100 would have had their lives saved by chemo. This is what scientific studies of tens of thousands of women have shown.

Their results are incorporated into prognostic calculators like Adjuvant Online. If you're interested in reading a deeper study about how chemo affects breast cancer patients, I can PM it to you. Or post it here, once I locate it again. 

Hi Adrian,

I don't have specific advice on the fertility issues, but I know it's a common concern especially for us triple negatives since TN is more common in younger patients.  

I know you're considering no chemo and rads, and if that's what your wife ultimately chooses, she'll have our support.  Please do your research, though, and make sure you understand the options along with the risks and benefits of each.  Be sure to get an understanding of the unique characteristics of triple negative pathology and the special considerations for young patients, as well as the specifics of your wife's individual factors including other medical issues, risk tolerance, personal preferences, general health status, etc. 

At risk of sounding like a "chemo pusher," I do want to mention that unlike the other cancer types who have extra options, we TNs basically have three options - surgery, chemo, and radiation if indicated.  TN is a particularly aggressive and sneaky  subtype, and to be honest - you only get one chance.  TN is a significantly higher risk of recurrence, and if it does recur it is stage IV and considered terminal, so it's important to understand the risk of "waiting and monitoring."  At this point, there are no alternative therapies with enough data to convince me to forego conventional therapy.  I personally chose all conventional therapies available to me, along with integrative things that may help support my body/mind in the difficult battle.  Look for facts and data and never rely on testimonials alone. Look into all the options and take what makes sense for you and your wife. 

There's a lot to understand, and I think we can all sympathize with the overwhelming burden of it all!  Please stick with us and ask anything you want - nothing is too naive to ask here.  A lot of us started out this journey with no experience with breast cancer and had no idea where to start. 

Here's a link to a useful brochure specifically on TNBC (triple negative breast cancer). You might also want to check out www.tnbcfoundation.org, and there's a site specifically for younger patients - I can't think of it now , but someone here will know.  

Triple Negative Brochure

Can anyone recommend a site where one can read the pros and cons between scientific and natural remedies after a cancerous lump (Stage 3 tumour with no nodal metastasis and at the time was triple-NEGATIVE) has been removed from a ladies breast ?

My wife (who does not work nor use a computer) is a strong believer in taking natural action since the operation, and I fully support her, but I would like to read together with her any comparisons that people have made to help make it clearer for her to be confident in her choice.

Conventional therapies have far better detailed evidence of their efficacy and side effects.  This fortunately or unfortunately leaves us with stark detail of both the effectiveness, failure rate and side effects, both serious and minor, temporary and long term.  As well, there is even a reluctance to acknowledge openly all of the reported side effects, like cognitive issues ("chemo brain") or long term fatigue.  The more we know, the more we become aware of the shortcomings and tend to dwell on them.  Alternative and complementary therapies tend to be less well studied, typically drawing upon appeals based on anecdotes, theory, in vitro or animal studies, or small scale clinical observations.  So as a result we are left with less knowledge of success and failure rates, and even side effects.  I guess what I'm trying to get at is that you will not find a clear cut way to compare on common ground, the conventional therapies with the alternative and complementary.  As well, given the above, it is easy to form strong opinions both for and against convention medicine, as we know it best.

I would urge you do as others have suggested, and make your best evaluation of the prognosis of your wife's cancer diagnosis, and look over the benefits of conventional treatment as set out in adjuvant online and cancermath.  Get some hard figures on survival rates both without further treatment and with convention therapies as a starting point.  In evaluating the side effects of conventional treatment, bear in mind that no one can say how your wife will tolerate it.  Her side effects might be average, better or worse.  Not everyone reacts the same way.

After that, my thoughts are to look at complementary therapies, with an eye towards 1) strength of evidence of benefit 2) absence of harm or interference with other therapies.  There are many good resources, such as Memorial Sloan Kettering's about herbs, American Cancer Society, and many privately run web resources such as Breast Cancer Alternatives, this site and Evidence Watch, by Constantine Kanaklidis.  I see Evidence Watch has greatly expanded his site, and now includes topics pertaining to natural, complementary therapeutics.  He has a good page about triple negative BC, and three myths pertaining to TN.

Also consider enrolling in a clinical trial.  Aside from the benefit of possibly receiving a superior therapeutic agent that isn't yet available to others, your  wife my receive better treatment, evaluation and follow up.  At the very least, it is a contribution to others who may also benefit if it is a success.  My wife has enrolled in a trial of bisphosphonates that lasts 3 years.

My wife having had a diagnosis of stage 3, ER+, PR+ breast cancer, my reading has mostly focused on treatments pertaining to her particular type of disease.  My wife has chosen to do both conventional treatment: surgery, radiation, chemotherapy and ongoing endocrine therapy, along with complementary treatments that hold out promise of reducing chemotherapies side effects, and reducing recurrence.  My wife found the worst of chemo not to be the old problems of nausea, that was well managed by today's drugs, but instead neuropathy causing acute pain and issues of long term fatigue.

I wish you two the best, and keep asking questions.  I'm sorry I don't have the clear answers you are looking for.

adrian

read this article

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153964,00.html

although this research was done from a preventive angle (prevention of primary breast cancer)--and they are pertaining to early pregnancy rather than pregnancy at 35,,,

its good to know that the pregnancy hormone they call HCG helps in activating tumour suppresor genes..and a pregnancy protein they call AFP (produced by the liver and yolk sac of a fetus) was defined as a natural defense system for breast cancer).

I'm not sure that asking strangers on a website what they believe will get you the most accurate information.  Have you asked her doctors?  I suspect that a pregnancy at this point would be risky, but i don't know.

I am also curious as to why her blood, urine and stool are being checked for signs of cancer since none of these tests would pick up breast cancer metastasis.  Possibly a tumor marker test (so a blood test) would indicate something, though it is unreliable.  I don't know what you get from her urine and stool.  Since she was diagnosed at a fairly advanced stage, i would think imaging would be the only way to really detect mets, and you certainly don't want to do that every 4 weeks.