Adriamysin/Cytoxin/Taxol vs.Taxotere/Cytoxin Treatment

dyanbrooks · May 2015

I have been trying to get more information concerning ACT vs. TC treatments and their effectiveness. My Oncologist is recommending ACT but I have a heavy family history of heart disease (my family dies from heart disease - not cancer - in fact I am the first breast cancer that we know of). I am getting two sides to the story and just looking for more information. I know that they continually check your heart, but also know that the only way they know it is damaging your heart is when it damages your heart... irreversibly. With that possible outcome, I want to be the one to make the decision - not the doctor.

I am getting a second opinion but more for the reason of finding a new Oncologist that is willing to discuss my options with me, rather than "tell" me what I am going to do.

Has anybody run across this themselves? I contacted an Oncologist and an Oncology Nurse through the Cancer Society and they told me a 15 year study showed they were both as effective, but my doctor is telling me that is not true and some 5 year study showed the opposite. Ugghhhh!! Who is to be believed. I can't believe that the Cancer Society would be giving out bogus information - twice.

Kicks · May 2015

I did 4 DD A/C neoadjuvant and 12 weekly Taxol adjuvant when I was 63. No hearrt issues before or since - next month I will be 69.

But we are each unique and there is no 'One Size Fits All’.

ksusan · May 2015

You might want to ask for the references for the studies from each of them so you can evaluate it yourself.

dyanbrooks · May 2015

ksusan - Interestingly I had been looking for this 5 year study online for 2 weeks and found it tonight. I was shocked!! It says just the opposite of what my Oncologist said. It not only didn't say that the AC was more effective or equal, but that TC was found to be more effective without the harsher side effects.

http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/24/34/5381.full

"There are many patients for whom four cycles of AC are still reasonable treatment, such as those who are node negative, low-level node positive, particularly ER positive, but AC puts these patients at risk of cardiotoxicity. For these patients, who were studied in this trial, TC seems to be an ideal regimen."......"Thirty-one years ago, the original AC regimen was reported.Now, there is a superior nonanthracycline regimen, TC. "

I found this by digging pretty deep into the John Hopkins site links. Does anyone know of any other sites that are good for researching medically accepted treatments and side effects?

dyanbrooks · May 2015

Kicks - did they do interim heart tests such as Echocardiograms with you? Any other testing for heart side effects? Did you get neuropathy with it? I also have hereditary neuropathy that I have been dealing with mid-twenties. I am just trying not to "jump out of the frying pan just to land in a raging fire", if you know what I mean. My cancer is early stage and curable.... congestive heart failure is not.

YoungTurkNYC · May 2015

Dear dyanbrooks,

To avoid any misinformation, the study you posted compares AC with TC not ACT with TC. So, in the study you posted, the "T" arm of the ACT treatment is missing. ACT (especially the dose dense version) is superior to TC.

ruthbru · May 2015

If you already have hereditary neuropathy you might want to go with AC, as a common side effect of 'T' is neuropathy. There is tons of heart disease in my family too, but I exercise religiously and never had any problems with my heart before chemo. I went into AC with a very good MUGA score and came out with one too, and never had any heart problems since then either. (AC was the Gold Standard at the time...TC was just starting to be offered.) I would say that if you go into chemo in good shape, there is a very good chance you will come out on the other side and be okay too.

Adriamysin/Cytoxin/Taxol vs.Taxotere/Cytoxin Treatment

Comments

Categories