Will 30% of Early Stage (1-IIIA) go on to metastasize??

Drug companies are for profit industries. I won't ague that. The reason why the cancer drugs cost so much is research costs so much… and it's a risk. Many of the drugs fail. The company needs to recoup their losses somehow. There are fewer new drugs being made today because of the cost of research. This is not good. But if we had a non profit government drug manufacturer do you think the costs would be better? be able to create the same or more drugs?

The real crooks IMO is the insurance companies. You know the ones that pay bonuses to their employees for managing to pay out the least amount of money on claims. Oh yeah they do have incentives like that.

As far as the non profits wanting to perpetuate that isn't true for all of them. I worked for ACS for the past 6 months. People there don't get paid all that much they do it for the mission. I don't know how many times I heard someone speak and say "lets find a cure and put the American Cancer Society out of business."

We here know that breast cancer is more than one disease, and even more than the categories they list. But when you are talking to the general public you can't get down to every detail. I mean there are still people out there that think if you're early stage and treated your cured. More education is really needed.

gemini4 don't get me started with well meaning sister that knows better! If it's one thing I have learned from this journey is that you don't know what it's like until it happens to you… and I'm talking about everything not just cancer diagnosis.

I saw this quote today - I was a bit miffed - from a celebri-cancer spokesperson, Bill Rancic, when asked about his response to the new diagnosis of ABC Good Morning America's Amy Robach.

“Your legacy will be you’ve saved so many lives in the process,” he said of RobachABC’s Amy Robach says her on-air mammogram saved her life – Los Angeles Times. Read more ... ». “With breastAmy Robach reveals breast cancer diagnosis on ‘Good Morning America,’ plans … – New York Daily News. Read more ... » cancer, it’s all about early detection. If you catch it early, you have a 98% chance it will never come back. If she can get one woman to go in and get a mammogramABC’s Amy Robach to Have Double Mastectomy – ABC News. Read more ... » because of her actions and what she did today. That’s a pretty fulfilled lifeMastectomy is just one option for treating breast cancer, but shouldn’t be chosen … – New York Daily News. Read more ... »!”

The line "if you catch it early, you have a 98% chance it will never come back" is what people take away and believe, and is a real disservice to the truth about breast cancer.

Lago...Hope you don't mind me asking about your friend...could they determine if the mets were from original diagnosis of IDC or were from new ILC?  Thanks!

Not sure but I personally believe it was from the new diagnosis*. The ILC really spread and it was under her S-GAP Flap reconstruction. It's rare for it to happen though. I thought it was like a 2% chance but more like 5%-10%** if you are BRCA+ or have a strong family history. Also I don't know if the 2% is more for a new cancer only and not taking into consideration of local recurrence. Not sure about those of us that are the family history.

* But I'm no oncologist so not sure if my opinion on this has much weight

** Source linky 1 and source linky 2

Totally off topic; but lago, I love your new picture. It makes me want to go eat in a Greek restaurant in Chicago!

ruthbru thanks but that photo was taken outside a seafood restaurant at Cape Cod right by the shore. I had fried clams and clam chowdah!

Early stage does include up to stage IIIA (source)

These are articles need to be discussed with your onc. As we've seen here the press & celebrities toss around info and stats that aren't always correct or said in a way to imply something that isn't true. The studies sited might be flawed or there were follow up studies that dispute the results. As we know things change all the time.

The best thing for all of us to focus on is the information specific to our diagnosis. Your age, health issues (or non-issues) along with many other factors go into play. A 22 YO triple negative stage I woman is not going to have the same prognosis as a 55 YO hormone positive woman yet they are both stage I.

DebDylan, are you referring to Tailor-X? If so, I will point out the results of that study do not include between 1/4 and 1/3 of all breast cancer patients that otherwise meet the criteria of the study. Those who are HER2 positive are not eligible for that study and not included.

SpecialK,

The "% who never recur" brings up the question of just how many years out from diagnosis are the statistics able to account for based on causation? As long as medical providers just can't seem to contemplate the logic of maintaining a sequential simple computerized count tallying each incremental exposure for each patient, we continue to turn a very blind eye to the cumulative risks over the long term posed by annual mammographic exposure, additional CT exposure, etc.

Boy, this topic really has legs. Very interesting!

I just checked back to see what my oncologist told me when I first saw him after my diagnosis.  He said that the recurrence rate for stage 1 is less than 20%, that it my case it is about 15% (not sure why mine is lower than the 20% unless its the ER+, PR+, Her- characteristics). He then said that with radiation and hormone therapy my chance of recurrence is between 5 adn 8 %.  Not sure where he got those figures, but they are certainly lower than 30%.

I am wondering how the passage of time from diagnosis affects the probablity of recurrence.  When I went for my 2-year post diagnosis mammogram, the tech seemed to feel that was some sort of milestone.

As for the conventional vs. alternative treatment debate.  I don't think it is close minded to go with the eveidence.  Chemo and reaidation have been proven to be effective in decreasing mortality in bc patients.  When an alternative therapy can show the same thing, I'm sure doctors will recommend it.  And I think it is sensible to be skeptical of any profit-making business including "Big Pharma" and "Big Natural".  At least pharmaceuticals are regulated which is not the case with "natural' products.  In the Medscape interview provided by voraciousreader, Dr. Offit points out that "natural" products aren't that natural and we don't really know what is in the products.  IMO, turning your back on radiation and chemo for something supposedly "natural" is taking a risk with your life.

AA, you are a (anecdotal) sample of ONE. Scientific trials demonstrating the effectiveness of Herceptin, obviously include many more people.

AA I'm not sure about that. They already had the stats for those who were HER2+ and didn't need Herceptin from all the old stats (I think it was about 25%). Adding Herceptin increased that number. I would thinks a statistician would account for that.

LittleMelons my onc wanted me to keep my port in for 2 years (total) because the first 2 years are when most recur (or at least those of us with the more aggressive tumors). So yes 2 years is a milestone as is 3 but especially 5 years.

SusanG if they are counting those who have benefited according to AA then they can easily subtract the percentage that don't need herceptin based on pre herceptin numbers. But you are right, they don't know the lifetime stats for early stage. It's only been 7 years since it was approved for early stage *linky

Lago...Jazz hands.