Chemo - since I have a choice, why would I?

Bobbi - you've talked about recurrence.  That's not the same as survival.  What about survival?  Does chemo give you any survival benefits?

I was in the same boat as you, except with rads, not chemo.  Rads would take my recurrence rate from 15% to about 5%.  But the big thing for me was that the studies showed no overall survival benefit.  My rad onc said that 90% of women in my particular situation were radiated for no reason.  85% will not recur, rads or no, and 5% will recur whether or not they get rads.  That leaves 10% of women who do not recur if they get rads who would recur if they didn't get rads.  But even those who recur had no worse survival rate than those who did not.

Once survival was off the table, then it came down to a quality of life issue.  I had to weigh my QOL with rads and all the possible side effects against my QOL with that 10% greater chance of recurrance.  I opted to decline rads.  Others in that same situation have opted to do rads - it's all with how comfortable we are with risk. The rad onc I liked (I consulted with 2) said she was comfortable with my decision to decline rads, but also would have been comfortable had I opted for rads. 

So far it seems your med oncs have only talked to you in terms of recurrance rates.  You may want to ask them about possible differences in survival rates if you do chemo vs. if you don't do chemo.  That might help you make your decision.  Obviously the Grade 3 tumor is troubling, but the onco score is reassuring.

FWIW, I did 6*TAC chemo - I had mild neuropathy in my feet and hands during chemo, but in the weeks after chemo was done, it gradually went away and I'm fine today.  

Good luck!

Well, wouldn't it come down to how upset you would be with yourself IF the worst possible outcome took place?  Would you be more upset to have permanent neuropathy OR more upset to have distant recurrance?   You don't give your age and that is a factor for some.  You also don't mention a hormonal therapy (but I assume you will be on one of them) and how much that will bring down the 15% risk.  Maybe you will feel comfortable with that reduction alone?

p.s. Did see PLJ's post while writing this, but I have pretty much agreed with everything she states.

BobbiMarie, I was staged at IIIA so, even though I really did not want to do chemo, I knew that it would increase my survival rate significantly, and with 2 small children, I knew I had to do it.

I think about what my OBGYN told me while I was pregnant when I asked her if I could drink an occasional glass of wine. She told me that it was probably fine, but if I did drink alchohol while pregnant and something was wrong with the baby, I may always wonder if I had caused the problem. That made my mind up for me right there. I approached chemo the same way, I just wanted to be sure that I have done everything that I can.

I had my last THC treatment a year ago and, all in all, it was not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. Neuropathy was not a problem for me and I feel back to normal today other than having a mild case of LE.

I know it is a tough decision and you need to do what is right for you. Love and hugs...

One love, Jackie

BobbiMarie, I was 57 when the BC was found. My onc said chemo would bring it down 2-3%. I felt I wanted that extra shield. Unfortunately I was not able to tolerate it and had to stop after my first treatment. That being said I am glad I tried, and if it comes back I know I did all I could.

Bobbi, I think you have some misread your Onco score.  If your RS (recurrent score) was 20, placing you into intermediate for local recurrence, then your percentage score (found on another line below the RS) for distant recurrence should be somthing lower than 20%.  I have never seen the RS & distant recurrence be the same number, so double check on that.

The answer to your question is of course to save your life and give yourself the best odds of survival possible.  If a recurrance should happen you would kick yourself in the butt.

Hi--I had an oncotype of 22--my onc also left it up to me.  As a widowed single parent, I did not feel I could tolerate the rigors or chemo and expect my sons to fend for themselves. Also, there is heart disease rampant in my family and did not want to risk the chemo. I was 56 at time of diagnosis.  My onc said I would derive 1% benefit from chemo.  I am close to 5 yrs out and pray everyday for continued good health.  It's just a crap shoot as far as I am concerned. 

ICanDoThis, You are so right the fatality issue really needs to be talked about by the onc's. One more thing to think about is developing other cancers due to the chemo.

What my new onc actually said was permanent side effects including death in 1-2%of the cases. For me I unfortunately was one of the lucky one in that 1-2%. As my new onc said a second dose will kill you.

I think the most important thing to remember is that you only get this one shot at knocking this insidious and evil disease out of your body. 

Without chemo, you can only pray.  With chemo, you can pray and at least have hope that any stray cell has been annihilated and also have the assurance that you have done completely all that you could to kill this beast. 

Whatever way you decide to go, know that I wish you a safe journey - with or without chemo.