Chemotherapy not working

My wife was diagnosed with breast cancer in April 2010 (I came to this board then for the 1st time). She was given neoadjyuvant chemo and then had the surgery in November 2010. Her first chemo was with adriamycin (Red Devil) and the side effects were debilitating, but it shrunk the tumor which was 5cm in size at the start.

In April of 2012 she had a recurrence in the same breast, but it was only in the breast, no METs. The doctors said that because she had been going for regular checkups the recurrence was caught quickly and the tumor this time was much smaller than the 5cm one of the initial diagnoses.

The oncologist, who is the same one she had the first time, said that because the tumor was smaller this time, the course of chemo wouldn't have to be as strong as the first one was. For the past 3 & 1/2 months she's had a chemo session every 3 weeks and aside from body aches there was no dramatic side effects like hair loss, appetite loss, vomiting, etc., like there was the first time. However, this past Friday, Aug 17th, the oncologist said that the chemo wasn't working as well as it should and there was only two options: increase the strength of the chemo or undergo e and remove the entire breast in a radical mastectomy (she had a lumpectomy the 1st time). He recommended the surgery as the best of the two options, and so my wife is scheduled for surgery this Wednesday the 22nd.

It seems to me that they should have used just as strong a chemo treatment this time as they did the first time in 2010, just to be on the safe side, and I said that to him when all this started, but he said due to the tumor's small size this time, it wasn't necessary. Now this. It makes me wonder if these A-holes know what they're doing. My wife wanted a full mastectomy the first time in 2010, but they said the tumor had shrunk to a size that made a lumpectomy a better choice. But maybe the full mastectomy would have prevented the recurrence, as I am left wondering.