Recurrence

Options
dobbins_margie
dobbins_margie Member Posts: 13
edited June 2014 in Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
Recurrence
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • dobbins_margie
    dobbins_margie Member Posts: 13
    edited May 2008

    I've just been thinking...and wonder if anyone is knowledgeable in this area. If the chemo kills the rapidly dividing cells; but then those cells are able to 'recover'....don't the cancer cells recover? and are they just as aggressive or more aggressive??

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • scorpio
    scorpio Member Posts: 58
    edited May 2008

    Hi Margie

    I too had chemo before surgery and an mri showed that my tumours were shrinking...my onc was very excited. But then when I had my surgery and the pathology report came back it showed that I only had a "moderate" response to the chemo...so I dont know if it was worth it or not.

    We all know that chemo kills rapidly dividing cells...evidenced in the hair loss., but when the hair starts growing back, that must mean that the chemo stops working, right? Sometimes I'm afraid that women think that chemo is somehow an immunization against a future recurrence, but by it's very nature it must be only a temporary treatment.

    Chemo's no fun and women need to think about it a lot. I was thinking in the traditional old school way, cancer equals chemo, but now I'm not so sure. Glad to see someone else is thinking outside the box.

    Scorpio

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NativeMainer
    NativeMainer Member Posts: 10,462
    edited May 2008

    The theory behind chemo is that cancer cells, because they are not normal cells, cannot repair themselves the way a normal, non-cancer cell can.  I wonder about how true this is, since most chemo drugs cause permanant side effects like taxol causing nerve damage and adriamycin causing heart damage. 

    Personally, I don't thing the rapidly growing normal cells recover.  I think they die and are replaced more quickly because that type of cell is made more quickly than others.  Nerves do not grow rapidly, they grow very slowly, and when they are damaged, it lasts a long time, if not for the rest of life.  Heart cells are not rapidly growing cells, and the damage from chemo and radiation shows up much later, when the cells that were damaged make damaged daughter cells, and when there are enough damaged cells, they don't work correctly anymore. 

    Of course, every doc you talk to will tell you this isn't true.  It's just my opinion.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • rubytuesday
    rubytuesday Member Posts: 2,248
    edited May 2008

    My opinion is 'what chemo doesn't kill (and it doesn't kill all cancerous cells) becomes stronger' (mutates, if you will).  Much like the antibiotic quagmire.  My 'theory' is based on some research and some of my own conclusions.  Best wishes

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • wallycat
    wallycat Member Posts: 3,227
    edited May 2008

    Here's my take...

    chemo kills cells.  It can't kill future cells, only fast growing cells in our bodies existing at the time.

    Cancer is simply a good cell gone bad...haywire and out of control.  Cancer is basically a cell that doesn't know how to die and will continue to grow.  Chemo removes it.  This doesn't mean that our bodies may not produce another cell without internal restraints...so cancer springs up from seemingly normal cells.  

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Categories