NO Chemo

Conventional therapy vs other therapy is a tough decision.

I think part of the problem is that there are too many "quacks" on both sides. I've read about truly absurd "alternative" therapies. And in fact I'd probably say MOST of them are idiotic, unscientific ideas. But there are known "alternatives" to chemotherapy and radiation that have been scientifically studied and shown more effective than chemo or radiation for both quality of life and survivability.

Given that Chemotherapy and radiation have been around for over fifty years and the "war on breast cancer" has been lost so far (using conventional therapy the mortality rate has actually increased when you look at age adjusted statistics) it's sure hard to believe in such a toxic and destructive approach.

What we really need is more scientific publicity of the natural therapies that have been proven to be effective.

I have just got to add my feelings here...this post started out with somebody who had clear margins, no node involvement and grade 3 tumor. That's all I remember that was said. I have those characteristics in my tumor as well as being hormone neg and her2 neg.

I did chemo and am now doing radiation. I hate it all. But, I also hate the fact that I have cancer. I know a woman who had breast cancer and went the alternative route and well...she died. I have a friend now who has breast cancer and has refused conventional methods and we are hoping she will live. It's a gamble. It's a gamble to take the chemo and rads. I got very sick on the chemo and couldn't finish it all. But, I do believe that because studies have shown that conventional treatments do prolong and even save lives, it is my responsibility to do all that I can to try to save my life. If I've done it all, and the cancer wins..then at least I know that I've done the best that I could have done.

there are lots of stories of women who survived without chemo and rads but we don't know all the details of their cancer so it proves nothing. I have a book written by a woman who had breast cancer some 10 years ago and when she got too sick on the chemo, she stopped and went on an alternative plan and she's still living and dancing with NED. Maybe the chemo that she got in her body was enough? Maybe she had a non-invasive type of tumor? I don't know. The fact is that she doesn't SAY what she had.

There are too many facts pointing to chemo and rads as ways to delay growth of a tumor, shrink a tumor or get rid of stray cancer cells that may have lingered after surgery. I am going for this method until otherwise proven...
ravdeb

Quote:

---

Nothing about cancer therapies is solidly proven and that goes for chemotherapy and radiation too. All we have are studies and statistics. Nobody has come up with a 100% guaranteed cure.

---

It's true that there is no 100% cure for cancer. However it's not true that none of the cancer therapies have been proven. Studies and statistics are real. Chemotherapy and radiation have been proven in many studies to reduce the recurrance of cancer. This is not to say, however, that these therapies will benefit everyone. The statistics don't suggest that 100% of people who take chemo or get radiation will avoid a recurrance. But the statistics do say that a large percent of people who take chemo or radiation will benefit. The statistics can even tell you, based on the specifics of the individual cancer, who is most likely to benefit. Chemo and radiation aren't for everyone; no one suggests that they are. Both have proven negative side effects that must be taken into consideration. But to suggest that the benefits of chemo and radiation are unproven is simply untrue.

A properly conducted research study is reliable. It involves one group taking a particular therapy and another group not taking that therapy. The individuals in the two groups are as closely matched as possible, in terms of age, health factors and any other relevant variables. Use of the therapy is monitored to ensure that the regime is followed correctly. When the results of a properly conducted research study show a statistically significant difference, this is real.

I'm not suggesting that all studies are valid; in some cases sample sizes are too small and in some cases proper protocol is not followed. Some research is simply poorly done. But to suggest that there are no proven cancer therapies is incorrect. To suggest that after all these years and all these studies that chemo and radiation have not been proven is a disservice to all the women (and men) who have taken these treatments.

Ah, that's a very different point. In both of your previous posts in this thread you said that chemo hasn't been proven and you implied that it doesn't work. Chemo has been proven and it does work. On one government site I read that there have been over 400 studies completed on the value of chemo, just for breast cancer patients alone.

Understanding the real benefit from chemo is very different than saying that it hasn't been proven to work. I don't disagree that there may be a misconception that chemo is more effective than it actually is. However the data you provided is misleading. I wouldn't want anyone to interpret your data as saying that there is only a 30% survival rate after 10 years with chemo.

Here's some of the 10-year survival data from the Komen site:

Women under age 50, small tumor, no lymph node involvement:
Without chemo 90.0%
With chemo 92.6%
% Increase in survival: 2.9%

Women under age 50, large tumor, no lymph node involvement:
Without chemo 71.2%
With chemo 78.3%
% Increase in survival 10.0%

Women under age 50, large tumor, positive lymph nodes:
Without chemo 41.8%
With chemo 53.3%
% Increase in survival: 27.5%

This clearly shows that chemo is very effective for women with more advanced BC, whereas for women with early stage BC, the lower benefit needs to be weighed against the risks and side effects. This is why chemo is not recommended for everyone. But for many women, it will be a life-saver. There is no similar proof that any non-conventional treatment will 'cure' BC. That said, I'm sure that most BC patients and doctors would agree that a healthy diet can't hurt.

Mithel, we don't agree. I believe that chemo can be very effective; you don't. The data shows that chemo increases the survival rate for women with late stage BC by 27%. As for the adjustment that you made to the statistics, remember that if you're going to increase the survival rate for the non-chemo patients by 2%, you have to make the same adjustment to the survival rate for the chemo patients. So we're back to the statistics that I pulled from the Komen site.

The only thing that we agree on is that chemo is not for everyone and I don't think this was ever up for debate. As a general rule, chemo is not recommended for patients with a tumor of less than 1cm, unless there are other factors that indicate that chemo might be beneficial. Personally, I have early stage BC and chemo was not recommended for me.

One last point. You are not a BC patient. Your wife is. The women on this site are - this is a discussion board for women with BC. May I request a bit more sensitivity? As a woman with BC, I do not want to hear about the "chance of death from cancer". I want to hear about the survival rate, and I want to discuss what can be done to improve the survival rate. Your posting is the first time that I've ever seen anyone refer to the "chance of death". As patients, we use this board to discuss the various treatments and get opinions about their value in our own treatment programs. Rarely however do I see anyone questioning the overall value of an established treatment, as you've done with chemo and radiation. Many women reading your comments are currently taking chemo or radiation. I'm sure that you were not intentionally being insensitive with your comments, but I think it shows that you do not have the same personal and emotional involvement and stake as a cancer patient.

Just to weigh in for others reading the thread. I checked adjuvant online for a 45 year old woman, Grade II tumor, node negative, tumor between 1.1 and 2 centimeters, minor health problems. If estrogen negative, 83.9 are alive in 10 years, with chemo adding 3.9 for a total of 87.8; deaths from other causes are 2.2. If Estrogen positive, the benefit of hormone therapy is +2.4, chemo +2.3, total net benefit (because these are not additive) is 4.0. These ARE difficult cases for deciding about chemo, vs. us node positive folks, but IN NO WAY does adjuvantonline give rates of death in the ranges quoted earlier. And, they are more positive than the ACS numbers because the are more 'forward' looking based on current treatments; when "third generation" regimens like TAC and A/C+T dose dense are used, the chemo benefits are greater.
Let me say I have been VERY cautious about mentioning adjuvantonline here because it is really meant to be a doctor/patient tool, but I couldn't let the incorrect info stand.
Leigh

Post deleted by boston91

Post deleted by boston91

Interesting stuff. I cant imagine being node positive and not considering chemo. People have been trying alternative treatments for cancer for years. Being in health care for 35 years, I have stories upon stories of trends and alternatie treatments - none of which have worked!

Did I want chemo? No! Was chemo hard? Yes. Do I feel I am cured? Only time will tell.

But lets not scare new people. Chemo is your first line of defence against this awful illness. And I am sure soon, there will be newer treatments that are not as toxic, but certainly not considered alternative therapy.

I fear my cancer has come back almost everyday. I think I would be a basket case if I hadnt of gone through chemo. At least I know in my heart I put up the best fight I had.

Nickii

Lori: The bottom line is - Once you make your decision, then run with it and don't look back.

NuttyNurseNicki

Hello, I'm new to this board. In Feb, at age 57, I was dx with stage IIa bc. Underwent a lumpectomy. Sentinel lymph node showed .15cm metastasis. Oncologist said that in many circles, this was considered equal to no lymph node involvement. Therefore, she was comfortable with no chemo, if I so chose. After weighing the facts that chemo would not appreciably increase my survival stats (but might leave me with some nasty side effects), I chose to forego chemo.

When I received my dx, I poured over many, many books and resourceful websites, both conventional and alternative. (Had I not had a dear friend who went the alternative route after lumpectomy in Mar 05, I would probably have not given alternative methods a second thought. She went that route after 3 women in her neighborhood were dx in the past 5 years, rec'd the full, prescribed conventional treatment, and still had recurrences. Two of them have died and the 3rd is terminal.)

My own intense study has centered on the selective induction of natural cell death (apoptosis) and the p53 gene. My foundational source was PubMed website. It gives abstracts of articles published in respected conventional medical journals, etc. (This site is where your oncologist is likely to go first for HIS/HER information!)

It's been 3 weeks since my last radiation treatment. Everyone at the cancer care center was wonderful. I had very few sides effects, none serious or even annoying...

Some have alluded to the fact that cancer is a very private, very individual experience... I believe decisions SHOULD NOT BE RUSHED, SHOULD BE INFORMED and, if you're religious, made after a lot of prayer. I agree with Mithel that both sides - conventional and alternative - put 'spin' on data and information extracted should be thoughtfully weighed. (How fortunate is Mithel's wife to have a spouse who would go to the lengths he did in support of her! Time is frequently of the essence with a bc dx and if you're the one with the dx, it's difficult to be clear-headed enough to amass the info, evaluate it and make an informed decision within a relatively small window of time! What a blessing it is to have such a supportive spouse! And yes, I did also.)

As for me, I choose an alternative route instead of hormonal therapy. Good luck to all of you and my prayers are with you!

march 2004 had my left side masectomy..no rads no chemo..I had beginning stage in 2 areas first lumpectomy then had to take it off because of 2nd area...nodes were clean...my cancer was court at a very early stage...then went for expander to make new breast(reconstruction) picked the wrong ps with out knowing but stayed because no other ps would continue after starting with other ps.....big mess because the ps was a greedy Dr. that did not understand what breast cancer was all about who knows maybe he hated woman.....okay Im here and after having my reconstruction done over i am well educated......Im here for anyone that needs me!!!!!!! you can email me also..

Melanie
redid reconstruction june14th 2006 yaaaaaa with a fabulous Dr at cleveland clinic I adore my new ps Dr Samson

Rachel,

Here's the link to the data that I quoted in my earlier post:

http://www.komen.org/intradoc-cgi/idc_cgi_isapi.dll?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&ssDocName=3-8-1-31

And here's a link to an earlier page on the same website. This page lists all the different research results that the Komen site has available. Hopefully you can find something that relates to your situation:

http://www.komen.org/intradoc-cgi/idc_cg...3-8-1#diagnosis

Some of these studies on Korman are rather old. I wonder if stage 3 er+ has enough of a gain- 3.? improvement of survival over the risks in older women -60+ for cardiac effects. Can you "subtract the risk of cardiac from the rather small 3% improved survial? Beth

Bessie,
The truth is that your onc just doesn't know. He uses the same stats. The new onco test is really only for stage 1-2. Invasive 3est+ her- is really just a flip of the coin. I would like more info from the reader who is interested in P53. I would like to think we are on the brink of major changes in cancer therapy, but if you look at the history of AI's and even Taxol, these have been used for many years. Much has been done for very early node-neg bc. Much less for higher grades and stages in terms of how to prevent progression to mets.