SO confused by reoccurrence data

Options
__asher__
__asher__ Member Posts: 147
edited July 2016 in Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned

I read this article that reads:

"The risk of local recurrence as a first event within 5 years after diagnosis was low overall, at 3%. It differed by subtype, with ER-positive, PR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer with the lowest risk and triple-negative with the highest risk," said Martine Moossdorff, MD, who is currently a doctoral candidate at Maastricht University Medical Center, in the Netherlands.

However, I have also heard that 23%+ of HER2+ patients will have a reoccurrence. I'm so confused

· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • NancyHB
    NancyHB Member Posts: 1,512
    edited July 2016

    asher, is that 23% recurrence rate for HER2+ for local recurrence, or distant (metastatic) recurrence? My undertanding is that local recurrence happens less often than distant recurrence overall for all subtypes. I don't have literature to back me up, just what I've read here and discussed with my MO after my own local recurrence.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • __asher__
    __asher__ Member Posts: 147
    edited July 2016

    It doesn't say, Nancy, but thank you for clarifying. That must be the difference

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • debiann
    debiann Member Posts: 1,200
    edited July 2016

    The two studies do not compare apples to apples. The first includes all sub-types, the second on HER2+, which accounts for only 25% of all BC.

    As pointed out there is a difference between local recurrence and distant.

    Also, types of treatments may have varied. One study may look at only the stats following surgery, while another includes chemo or anti-hormonals. Always look at the years in which data was collected, old data is not pertinent today. There are also other important variables, such as age.

    In the end, the stats are not all that important to an individual. It doesn't matter if you are given a 99% cure rate if you are the 1% who recurred. You're no better off than someone who was given only a 70% cure rate and recurred. So you either will or you won't, no good way to predict the outcome.

    I try not to think about stats too much, but two tools that give a more personal perspective are http://predict.nhs.uk/predict.html

    http://lifemath.net/

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Valstim52
    Valstim52 Member Posts: 1,324
    edited July 2016

    Well said debiann. If I have recurrence whether local or distant then it is 100% for me. The statistics do not matter. All they do in my opinion is give you cause to either be oblivious and think you are ok, or to make you panic. Neither is balanced or healthy. Just my 2 cents

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • debiann
    debiann Member Posts: 1,200
    edited July 2016

    I agree with you Valstim. Of course we all get dark thoughts, but I try not to panic about the odds of recurrence. Why let a possible future cancer rob me of my pleasures today? I think of round 1 with cancer as being hit by a bus. It happened, it was terrible, I've recovered and its over. I sure hope I don't get hit by a bus again, but in the meantime, I don't spend my days looking for the bus.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • __asher__
    __asher__ Member Posts: 147
    edited July 2016

    Thank you kindly for sharing your knowledge and suggestions so that I may better understand the information I'm reading.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Traveltext
    Traveltext Member Posts: 2,089
    edited July 2016

    debiann. + valstim52 = spot on

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dtad
    dtad Member Posts: 2,323
    edited July 2016

    Totally agree. IMO stats mean nothing! It's just a crap shoot. Try to stay positive and live your life.....

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Categories