Olivia Newton John

Lantana, 20 years ago they treated in sit like stage one.

Wobbly, That’s the percentage of all Stages 1 to 3, yes, but since the figures are only taken for survival 10 years post diagnosis, it’s not safe to assume any stage has a differing longer-term prognosis. Generally, higher stages recur earlier than lower stages, but the 30% figure holds.

There’s a very long thread here that’s looked into survival rates and this appears to be the consensus.

Traveltext - I will be in Brisbane for a 4week holiday in October- so very excited! I was dx stage 4 January 2018, a year after my stage 2 dx, so am getting to Australia as it has been my dream destination for 50 years!

Lantana,

I had Luminal A Stage II grade 2 with macro-metastasis in sentinel node (3 mm tumor) and multi-typal breast cancer (LCIS, DCIS, IDC, ILC and cribriform) diagnosed back in 2009.

On October 19 I will be celebrating 9 years of survival. Not saying that it's been a joy ride, and I had many bumps along a very rough road due to side effects of the treatment, but I'm alive and kicking.

Don't worry about the "if"s. Nobody knows what tomorrow will bring. Don't let the uncertainty and fear make you unable to live and enjoy the "today". Live one day at a time and learn to see it as a gift.

Big hugs.

Day

Hey Lantana, I'm one that fell into the distant metastasis at the end of the 5th year. I fit right into the statistical box on my oncodx report. I never worried about it nor thought about distant metastasis. I always thought local recurrence could be the reality. You can see my signature. I breezed through surgery and treatment but got off AIs after two years. HR+ is like a ghost. Can be ever present and persistent but undetected. Like many of us have said you do all you can do then live your life. My concern for many women is the human reaction of blaming themselves, their doctors or the treatment choices for their battle with this disease instead of blaming the cancer. Thanks for the article. I read it last week but didn't know how to post it. Keep up the good fight and have a good one. Hugs and peace.

Traveltext - I read 'Walkabout' when I was about 14 and have wanted to see Australia since then - I am currently 64 and I am getting there! To make it an even better trip one of my sons has lived in Australia for 5 years now, has found a lovely woman to share his life with, and just starte his own business in Robina area (where they live). I would love to get travel tips from you, I had been wondering what your name means, now I know! We are interested in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane areas primarily. Due to my stage 4 diagnosis my MO has curtailed my trip to the Outback, though we will certainly experience it in a day trip. I look forward to hearing back from you Janice

Ladies, I too, have been a huge ON-J fan, one year I went to a costume party dressed as her Wishing us all healing and health. janky

Traveltext I have to disagree with the 30% chance of distant recurrence applying to all stages. If cumulative risk is 13% for stage one and we know that 50% of recurrence happens before 5 years . Then a less than 7% chance of recurrence is a different story than the 30%.

Applying a one size fits all figure isn't accurate and is needleddly terrifying for many.

Also I disagree with the dirty secret business.... again terrifying...

Research over 40 year periods suggests clinical cure for many at about 23 years.

What I don't understand is why the powers that be can't allow women at high risk for recurrence, for example women diagnosed at a young age 40 yrs or less for their initial cancer, why we can't at least receive an MRI say every 5 years. It would catch a lot of recurrences before they have metastasized extensively. It' just because of the money.

I for one feel my post-cancer surveillance was excellent by my oncologist in the U.S. for my first 13 years post initial BC, but then when I moved to Canada, they no longer allowed me to see an oncologist because of socialized medicine. I regret the day I ever moved here but had to move here for family reasons. My family doctor knew nothing about how to follow a cancer survivor for signs of recurrence. As a result I am now Stage IV. Personally, in restrospect despite the cost, if I had known my risk of recurrence was so high ~ 20-30 %, I would have paid out-of-pocket for a PET scan every three years or so. It would have saved me from the situation I find myself in now. It's too late for me but if I was a young woman BC survivor, I would pay out of pocket for scans every few years even if I went bankrupt doing it.

jankey, That's amazing that you would read that article ( the magazine stopped publishing many decades ago) and now get to make a visit. My. Partner, Julia, who is from Maine, read about the GreatbBarrier Reef in a magazine and migrated here in 1969 with the idea of using her science degree to study corals. This she did, getting a research job and she went on to publish a paper in Nature magazine on the embryology of the Crown of Thorns Starfish.

When is your trip?

I was told by my GP that scans find things that need investigation because of the law and these things are usually benign and harmless. He says we become "medicalized". And he says, radiation from scans isn't healthy either. So, he will only suggest scans if clinical symptoms appear. I did have a CT scan a few years back after a visit to ER for bronchitis and tumors were found on my adrenal glands. These tumors are adenomas and are common and harmless. But because of my 'history' I had to have them investigated. Same as nodules in the lungs and on the thyroid. I had my thyroid removed because I had a nodule on it found by that ct scan and specialists said likely cancer. It was not. My GP tried to talk me out of the surgery telling me thryoid issues can be managed with drugs. I wish I had listened to my GP. On that same CT scan, they found lung nodules. I had to have a CT scan every 3 months for 2 years. I was constantly worried. They are gone now. The nodules were from my stupid bronchitis probably. So if I hadn't had that CT scan I would never had known about the lung nodules and I would have gone on without the worry and exposure to radiation.

So on the one hand, I agree that scans only need to be done when clinical symptoms appear because why freak ourselves out all the time? On the other hand, I am sympathetic to the fact if recurrance is caught very early before symptoms appear we think they are likely to be eradicated easier. I have been told by my previous MO once the horse is out of the barn, and we have stage 4, it doesn't matter when we catch the mets. Our response to treatment is what saves us. I have to admit, it seems more logical that the earlier it is caught, the easier it is to treat and the longer we have.

Maybe having scans when we want them is the answer for our peace of mind.... who knows?

wallan

Further to the above regarding the 'dirty little secret', here's the deal based on all I've read (and I've read a lot ). It's true that hormone positive cancer has an unrelenting risk of recurrence decades later. I also agree that if a woman were diagnosed in her 70's, she may die with that recurrence pending and we just don't know. So I'm guessing the figures - yes - would be higher.

That said, it is NOT true that all cancers recur. Some simply don't. Someone at stage 1 is definitely in a better position statistically speaking. At stage 1, it's a much higher possibility that the cancer is still wholly dedicated to the breast and hasn't left the area. Therefore, surgery and radiation are more likely to fully eradicate the cancer. If cancer is in the nodes, then that proves that breast cancer has left the breast and has likely moved into other parts of the body (the cancer doesn't travel via the nodes, they've recently found. The presence of cancer in the nodes says that the cancer has left the breast). And this is where things get tricky re: treatment. We now have to rely on systemic treatments to help eradicate or halt the growth of the cancer. And so, the more advanced we are, the harder it becomes. Hormone positive cancer is notorious for not fully responding to chemo, and relies heavily on the endocrine arsenal. And we are all biologically different, so our individual responses to therapies means differing levels of success of killing cells throughout our bodies.

And when hormone therapy ends - assuming it has successfully helped slow or halt any growth during treatment and that there was no resistance before ending treatment - any dormant or circulating cells will wait for that appropriate 'seed to soil' opportunity. In some peoples' cases, these cells will never find that opportunity. In others, they do. Apparently metastasis is quite the complicated process and doesn't happen quite as easily as we all feel it does (I personally feel completely vulnerable to it). I read one study that says that for hormone positive patients with nodal involvement, recurrence is as high as 41% at 15 years. The recurrence rate varies depending on number of nodes involved, grade of tumour, age of person, etc. If the average recurrence is about 30% at 15 years, one can only presume that it's likely more like 50% by 25-30 years.

But in spite of that scary figure, we still can see that it's likely that 50% will live a long lifespan unless something other than breast cancer gets them first.

As a triple positive person who achieved complete response to therapy, I have no clue what my 'stats' are...obviously I have my own personal outcome here. The fact that I had nodal involvement, was 47 at diagnosis, had a grade 3 tumour is all against me. For me, ironically enough, was being Her2 positive and having complete response to neoadjuvant therapy even though I was 90% ER positive.

In summary, from all my reading and talking to others, there is no guarantee any cancer WILL or WILL NOT come back. But at stage one, you are in a definite better position than others statistically speaking. That's a complete fact. Stage 1 IS - in absolute reality - curable. All comes down to if all the cells were captured.