BC Recurrence Rate%, is it true?

No, a mastectomy does not reduce your risk of distant recurrence when dealing with an invasive cancer (though it may decrease risk of a new primary in the breast, though usually that is not the biggest risk for most women after there has already been an invasive cancer diagnosis). It is like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, so to speak. Research has shown that recurrence rates after mastectomy versus lumpectomy + rads are very similar. Both are primary therapies meant to remove the tumour and can do that effectively. That is not to say a mastectomy is not appropriate in many situations, just that it is not a treatment that reduces risk of distant recurrence.

Neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy (such as chemo or hormonal therapy) on the other hand are used to increase chances of long time survival/decrease risk of distant recurrence: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/adjuvant-breast

I think more women would do well to read and ponder these recurrence statistics before choosing a mastectomy as treatment for early stage breast cancer. 

Overtreating breast cancer is becoming a huge problem. It doesn't look like surgeons are saying no to patients who insist on having their breasts removed. Later, when the cancer's presence is detected again, these women are shocked. 

Just look at the signatures of women in the Stage IV forums to get an idea of how many times women with early stage breast cancer sacrificed their breasts yet still had a recurrence. 

Another statistic not getting enough airplay is that chemo usually fails. It may prolong life, but sometimes only for months or weeks. More often than not, in breast cancer patients, the cancer returns after chemo. When I was first diagnosed, chemo was explained to me in glowing terms, like an insurance policy that would protect me for life. I had no idea that some people had chemo more than once, or were in a constant chemo cycle, or had their cancer return after chemo. I was so naive, even after my doctor consults. My doctors were not truthful with me. I didn't know the right questions to ask. I do now. 

One oncologist I had said to think of it this way...

EVERYONE has a risk of getting cancer...and the older we get, the higher the risk becomes simply because an aging body is poorer at "fixing" the rogue cells.  People who already had cancer are simply at higher risk...but NO ONE is risk free.

I agree...I don't like the fact that for lobular especially, our recurrence risks get less favorable as we get further out...

Some days I think about it a lot; other days it never enters my mind.  I remember when I was first diagnosed, it consumed me.  I'm much better about it.  If we live as cancer patients 24/7, the disease has already won.  I try to have a good day every time I wake up and try (sometimes that is very hard) to not focus on cancer recurrence till or if it happens.  

Michael J Foxx (the parkinson's patient/actor) said.."if I dwell on my disease and worry about things that may happen, it is as if I got the problem twice---once, the whole time I worried and a second time when it came true; let me deal with it only once."

Tarhee, I am shocked every time I look at the stage 4 forum with ladies with stage 0 & 1 that go on and  are dx with mets.

Sad to see  how many young women are being dx. Getting chemo or not seems to be a factor of positive nodes. My 6 positive nodes made it a no- brainer.

I believe it's a crap shoot, the Drs. Are trying to do the right thing, but its a complicated disease.

I am hopeful that doctors are more judicious, never mind aware, of the treatment options related to types of cancers.

Sadly, some docs don't stay current...

and as we have all said, sometimes, it is just pure luck (good and/or bad)--bad luck to get the cancer and good or bad luck on how it develops or doesn't.  It's a crapshoot.

Treatments that "should" work do not always work and people go into remission through no action of their own in some cases.

I opted out of chemo because I had 2 docs tell me 4% or less benefit is not "worth it" for the side effects that come with it.  I have no idea if I will learn to regret the decision or not.  The fact is that much of this is hindsight.  We have to make the best decision with the information we currently have and then let it go or we can worry ourselves ad nauseam and reduce the quality of life we have while we have it.

I'm not saying I don't have days I am frightened to my core, but I try not to have it rule my days.

Hlya, the recurrence rate is fairly high, although I have actually found it difficult to find stats on lifetime recurrence risk (instead of just 5-year or 10-year ones). However, with changes in treatment, stats like that would be fairly unreliable anyway.

The article you saw is from some holistic treatment place. As is unfortunately often the case with places/practioners like that, they are not all that careful about their facts. There are zero footnotes and it doesn't even say what they are basing those numbers on. So, I would not take that particular article too seriously.

Interesting observations and experiences.  

I really appreciate everyone sharing. 

hlya, no regrets on refusing chemo, tamoxifen (initially, as preventive) or ovary removal. No regrets then and especially not now, as doctors tell me chemo just isn't best treatment for my type of tumor. No regrets now because I see women who were diagnosed the same time as me, or a little later, who had chemo, then a recurrence, (and now going through more chemo). No regrets when I see young women with severe heart problems because of chemo damage. They weren't told about these risks. 

Some women don't have a choice with chemo. But I did. I think chemo would have weakened my body so much that a recurrence may have been deadly because I'd be too weak for more treatment. After diagnosis, I was thinking of my life long-term when considering treatment options, and the health consequences of chemo worried me. Now, I see women with hearts and nerves damaged by chemo (many say they weren't adequately warned.)

Another point, I truly don't feel that my cancer was a recurrence. It doesn't fit the pattern of "travelling" via blood or lymphatic system to other parts of the body. I believe the cancer in my left breast showed up first but it was already elsewhere in my body at that time, just not visible on scans. 

The only evidence I have to support my theory is that when my cancer returned, it was basically everywhere in my torso except my left lung and left rib bones, the area closest to radiation site, which could have received some residual radiation benefit. Otherwise, if my recurrence was cancer that travelled from my left breast to elsewhere in my body, (as was explained to me) then why didn't it show up elsewhere in my left breast, or even my right breast? (My recurrence of breast cancer was not in either breast. Which was the only place I was vigilant about looking for it. ... Another mystery. )

Glad to have Tamox now. It's working. I don't think I could have dealt with these horrible side effects unless the benefit is saving my life. Wouldn't do it over again any other way. 

Hlya, I can look at 10-year survival two ways. I can count off 1000 women with BC in year 0, and then I can count how many are still alive 10 years later. That is overall survival.

However, it throws everyone together. It might be that most people die in year 3, but you won't know this from a plain 10-yr survival rate. If, for example, most people died in year 3, this would mean that people in year 4 and beyond would have odds far better than the overall survival.

If I count conditional survival, I would instead calculate how likely you are to survive IF you have already lived 3 years past DX (or 5 or 10 or whatever).

As always, stats don't take into consideration all the lifestyle choices we have made or are making to decrease our chances of recurrence. Using raw data is one thing ,but I don't let it be the "be all/end all".  It's impossible to determine each individual physiology, activity level, diet, environmental influences, etc etc. 

I look at the stats as a place to begin. We can do our best to reduce those numbers by what I've said above.

Claire in AZ

to divecat: Just to clarify, mastectomy DOES reduce the risk of local recurrence. It pretty much eliminates it to, depending on where you get it done, perhaps up to 98% odds or so.  But you are right: that which threatens overall survival, i.e. possibility of distant recurrence, metastatic spread, is not affected by lumpectomy/mastectomy choice.

claireinaz,

Your picture is making me homesick for Flagstaff!