How does age affect treatment decisions?

I am thankful that my mother, at age 61, was treated very aggressively at the time (mid 1980's).  I have no doubt that she is here today because of this.  She had, what I recall to be a 5 cm tumor.  I don't think I knew the stage or grade, but I do believe it was "slow growing".  Unfortunately, she had three positive nodes.  At the time, if one had fewer than three positive nodes, they actually didn't give chemotherapy.  Three nodes was considered "borderline" so one might or might not get chemo, but she got the chemotherapy.  Also, she had very close margins after the mastectomy, so she also had radiation (which was also not a "given" at the time). She took 10 years of Tamoxifen, and stopped at the point that research indicated that five years was sufficient.  Now, they are saying that 10 years is more beneficial.

I believe that they actually have become more aggressive with treatment in older individuals, but I always defer to Beesie's knowledge base. and I'm sure that they tend to be more aggressive with younger women, on the whole, as compared to older women.  Also, "61" isn't "80", and even though my mother's pathology may have been slow growing, it obviously spread already to nodes.

ballet, as someone who is just a few years shy of 60 (gosh, when did that happen?), I'd agree that 61 isn't 80! I don't consider someone 60 to be old, and I suspect it's not in the same category, from a treatment standpoint, as someone who is 80.  Most 60 year olds are vibrant and healthy and able to withstand potentially harsh treatments. And most 60 year olds will hopefully be living another 20 or 30 years, which is plenty of time for even a slow-growing recurrence to develop, progress and to do harm. While many 80 year-olds are in great shape, they are more likely to be dealing with other health issues, possibly minor ones but ones that could be affected by harsh treatments. The average life span for a woman who is 80 years old is less than 10 years, so a slow growing recurrence (and breast cancer in older women tends to be slower growing) isn't likely to shorten an 80 year old's life by much, if at all.

As I said in my earlier post, I suspect that if my mother had been 20 years younger, rads and possibly hormone therapy would have been recommended.  I also suspect that if her diagnosis had been more advanced, more treatment would have been prescribed. 

My guess is that although it may not be 'official', there probably are 3 treatment categories when it comes to age.  The first is younger women, maybe 45 or younger. They will get the most aggressive treatment recommendations. The second is older women, who will get less aggressive treatment recommendations. Here I think the age may vary depending on the health of the individual and the diagnosis.  A healthy 75 year old with a more advanced cancer probably will be prescribed a more aggressive treatment regimen (relative to her diagnosis) than someone who is 65, dealing with other serious health issues and who has a early stage BC.  The third category is everyone in the middle, which is the majority of diagnoses.  That's just my take on it. 

I just realised this was aimed at high risk women. So I don't fit.

 Aged people it's more difficult for their body to face a treatment