Need advise!!! 33 or 16 week Radiation Therapy

Options

OK ladies, I need some help. I'm getting ready to start radiation tomorrow. I discussed the Canadian protocol 16 week, verses the normal 33 protocol with my RO last week. He said I could do it but he would not reccomend it for me. The main reason that I'm young 47 and had micro met in one node. My husband wants me to do the 16 week treatment. I have not found anything that's supports me doing the 16 weeks. All I see is postmenopausal women with no node involvement that are doing it in the US. So I'm reaching out in hopes of finding women that are pre menopause, node involvement that have or who are going with the 16 weeks? I had a low oncotype score so I'm not doing chemo. I know ultimately this is my desicion to make. Breast cancer hasn't just happened to me, it's happening to my family as well. My husband and I have made all my treatment desicions together, and I know he'll support what ever choices I make. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks


Comments

  • crestie
    crestie Member Posts: 14
    edited January 2015

    Do you mean 16 day versus 33 day?

    I am age 48 and pre menopause and had three weeks, actually 15 days (pretty much the norm in the UK) Some have slightly longer at four weeks, 20 days.T

    My treatment was at a world renowned cancer hospital so I was very happy with my treatment and protocols followed. The thought of having radiotherapy daily for 33 days when it can be done in 16 makes no sense to me. It was tiring enough doing 15!

    I am sure you will make the best choice for your given circumstances, but please don't think the shorter protocol is less effective as from what I understand there is no evidence to support this concern.

    Best wishes

  • Hotrodmommy
    Hotrodmommy Member Posts: 22
    edited January 2015

    Oops!!! Thanks for catching that, that would be a whole lot of radiation. Yes, I meant 16 days verse 33 days. I feel the same as you why go for a longer period of time when you go for the shorter. I know there's a lot of RO who don't want to use it, and don't bother letting their patients know about it. I heard about it from this wonderful site. I asked if I could do that protocol. This is the first time I feel confused on what I should do. Yikes!!!!!! This is so hard. Thanks for your input, it truly helps to hear from all these brave, strong women who have and are having to make these hard decisions.

  • Reader425
    Reader425 Member Posts: 653
    edited January 2015

    I asked about the shorter course but was told the skin issues can be potentially more severe than the longer, so it was not recommended in my case. I have an underlying autoimmune disorder that could possibly "object " or cause trouble with the greater intensity of the shorter course (which is my non-medical understanding of the difference between the treatments).

  • Reader425
    Reader425 Member Posts: 653
    edited January 2015

    I asked about the shorter course but was told the skin issues can be potentially more severe than the longer, so it was not recommended in my case. I have an underlying autoimmune disorder that could possibly "object " or cause trouble with the greater intensity of the shorter course (which is my non-medical understanding of the difference between the treatments).

  • Hopeful82014
    Hopeful82014 Member Posts: 3,480
    edited January 2015

    My understanding is that you would receive the same amount of radiation, just more "dose dense." That could cause skin issues, of course. I've been told that women with smaller breasts tend to experience less burning and fewer side effects overall due to the fact that not as much is needed to get through the breast mass. Thus, you might consider whether that fits your situation or not.

    Good luck with the decision making. It's a tough call.

Categories