ASCO recommendations?

Thanks for this Shelly.  

The ASCO recommendations are horrible!  

my MO actually told me she thought IF my cancer is to come back, she thought it would be around the 2 year mark. I have noticed numerous BCO ladies dx with mets around that time frame. Then you have to wonder if the mets was there from the beginning and did not show up on the 1st scan. 

Because I had so much cancer in the axillary, I did have a Pet Scan, right after my lumpectomy. Mets will not show up on that scan if they are too small. 

My fear, besides the obvious, is with no testing of any kind, it would be easier to slip into a hypochondriac thinking. I am trying very hard to get moving and not think about it. I do not need to tell any of you how hard that is... 

This discussion has gone around and around on BCO many, many times. It seems like those of us with BC and our oncologists fall into one of two camps - to scan or not to scan on a regular basis to "see" if there is anything going on. I will say up front that my onc is in the no scans until symptoms present camp and I am ok with that. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter if your recurrence is found in, say, January through a scan or, say, May when your body is exhibiting some symptom. It does not change the eventual outcome - ie whether you survive or not. Generally, it is not a case of a recurrence not being found until it's too late for treatment, because your body tells you something is wrong, check it out. Many follow the 2 week rule - if you have an ache, pain, or dizzy spells or whatever, for two weeks then see you oncologist.

That being said, some people are not happy unless they get regular scans. But I feel they are living with a false sense of security. A "clean" scan just means nothing was found, not that nothing was there, and only on that day was nothing found. It tells you nothing about the next day, or the next, or all the rest until your next scan.

Peace - you can push till you "get what you need" get all the scans your oncologist allows, if you feel that gives you peace of mind. But it is not standard care and not something we should be telling everyone to do.

.

Shelly, thanks for starting this thread, it really helps to talk about it and bounce off our fears. My MO is straight by the book, and the hospital also prints out those guidelines for all cancer patients. 

I am pushing for the Zometa in May. I will change MO at that point if I do not get it. Changing Drs. Is not a easy thing. I live in a rural area, big city 2 hours away and it's the same corporation. So, I am trying hard to eat right, and move....

Shelly, 

I am taking Arimidex, been on it 5 weeks. Some SE, but I can handle it. Zometa is a Biophosphonate, that they give women that become osteopenia from AI. I want to get that 2 times a year as a preventative. MO said NO originally, but I told her about the new studies, and if nesscessary, I would pay for it, out of pocket. 

What I have found interesting is that in many studies for "early stage" cancer, the narrative inevitably somewhere says Stage I and II with no mention of Stage III at all.  While technically Stage III is considered "early," in the minds of many doctors and researchers we are somewhere in limbo between early and late stages.  So with that in mind, I don't believe Stage III  is  really being covered many times by these studies and recommendations even if Stage III is said to be included in the term "early stage."  I just get the feeling that they are focusing on Stages I and II for recommendations, but tossing Stage III into the mix by default.  What applies to Stage I surely doesn't apply to Stage III all the time.

(I've only had one cup of coffee so far, am I making sense?).

Carol

bump