Taking Tamoxifen Longer May Better Prevent Recurrence

Options

Comments

  • proudtospin
    proudtospin Member Posts: 5,972
    edited December 2012

    saw that, can not say I am happy about being told to stay on my AL for past 5 years as I was sort of counting the months till 5 years is up...12 as of now

  • coraleliz
    coraleliz Member Posts: 1,523
    edited December 2012

    Thanks for posting. The 3% benefit of saying on Tamoxifen probably isn't enough for me though.

  • voraciousreader
    voraciousreader Member Posts: 7,496
    edited December 2012

    It's been posted under "San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2012"  Thread....

  • 1Athena1
    1Athena1 Member Posts: 6,696
    edited December 2012

    For a 2.8 percent no-BC benefit? No way, Jose!

    I'd rather die of cancer than contemplate the mess my house would be in after 10 years of fatigue-driven indolence.WinkCoolYell

    Sorry - would rather die neat....

    Than take a drug that disabled and almost killed me.Undecided

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited December 2012

    Even though I'm not suffering any noticeable SE's... I am looking forward to being cancer drug free in 38 months.  If they don't find anything new to convince me otherwise by then...I don't think it's worth it for such little % either.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited December 2012

    The other thing about this study ...and studies like them.  It's so hard to determine how it relates to us specifically.  I couldnt find the info on the Lancet link... were all these women the same stage?  Did any have chemo?  Were they all premenopausal?  Were any of them HER2+? Did any have their ovaries out?  

    Unless the study of 12,000 women were ALL premenopausal, stage 1, highly ER+, didn't do chemo, no nodes, etc......I don't find this information particulary useful to me. You know what I mean?

    I guess it is nice to know that they didn't find any additional "risks" from taking Tamoxifen for the 10 years vs. 5 years for pre-menopausal.  Sigh.  Still a crap shoot I think.

  • 1Athena1
    1Athena1 Member Posts: 6,696
    edited December 2012

    Could not agree more, Susan. The other bit of information I was looking for was HOW er-positive the women were.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited December 2012

    Exactly.  I think that would be a pretty important variable.   

    Have they revisited the importance/non importance of the Tamoxifen Metabolizing test (forget the name CYP323xyz???) ... were results better for those that were "extensive metabolizers"? I still can't believe that variable doesn't play in there somehow.

  • 1Athena1
    1Athena1 Member Posts: 6,696
    edited December 2012

    ...and dosage. I am assuming everyone got 20 mgs, but so many meds' efficacy are dose dependent.

    I really don't find this study to be instructive.

    My other huge question: How many women get BC so young that ten years post-dx they would still be premenopausal? There are some of us but not many. Take away older women and also women who undergo chemopause and your sample isn't that huge.

    I really wish the cancer industry would stop throwing stiatistics on us and present us with some biomedical science, for a change. Tell me how TAM is metabolized, who it works for and in what way.

  • voraciousreader
    voraciousreader Member Posts: 7,496
    edited December 2012

    come join us on the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2012 thread!

Categories