Hi all.
I’m new to the forum (and breast cancer!) so apologies if this post isn’y right in some way. I was diagnosed with two small tumors in my left breast in July and had the mastectomy on Aug 5th(not bothering about reconstruction). I saw the consultant two days ago to be told that the lymph gland biopsy was clear of cancer cells. Despite that chemo has been reccommended - IS THAT USUAL?
I’m very reluctant to go that route because of the side efects but might go with hormone therapy - Arimidex. ANY ADVICE OR EXPERIENCES TO SHARE?
Any idea whatthe recurrence stats are if I do nothing?
Looking for any help I can get.
Hello - sorry to hear of your diagnosis.
There are so many varying factors which can influence your treatment. Size of tumour, whether there is node involvement, grade of cancer, whether it is responsive to oestrogen or not, if it is positive for the HER2 protein, if there is lymphovascular invasion.
Your onc really should run through all of these options with you. There is a tool call Adjuvant which processes details of your diagnosis and reveals how each type of treatment can help you and what your risk of recurrence is following each type of treatment. Get in touch with your BCN and ask her to arrange it with the onc.
Good luck.
Hi
As msmolly said there are lots of varying factors.
However I think they tend to offer chemo to be sure that if any microscopic cancer cells did get into the body they can zap them. A bit like an insurance policy. Although your oncologist should have gone through all this with you.
There is info on how people have fared with Arimidex somewhere on this site.
All the best g
hi sandy,
i also had clear nodes but was recommended chemo - they said it was due to my age being 35. I strongly believe they would’nt be putting us through something so agressive and expensive if the benfits didnt outweigh the negatives so have gone wahead with the treatment - 4 cycles epirubicin and 4 CMF. I will be having rads and hormone therapy afterwards. I was told by my onc that it was the rads that make the biggest difference in terms of recurrance/spread and that chemo and hormone therapy combined only make about a 10% difference but i know i would regret not having taken this chance if at some point the cancer returned.
Best of luck with your decision.
xx
My lymph were clear too but i was told chemo was needed as i am 32. We are full of hormones and they said chemo will knock the oestrogen down quidkly and kill any stray cells should there be any. It improved my prognosis by 9% which is worth it!
good luck
My lymphs were clear, I was 34, grade 3, stage 2, but they said I didnt need chemo, just zoladex and tamoxifen which together would do the same thing as chemo. On getting my HER2 result of 2+, I was told the chemo and herceptin together would only make a 3% difference.
You really should have been given more info from your onc.
hi sandy
i have grade 3, stage 1, node neg tumour which is triple negative (oestrogen, progesterone and herceptin neg) so doesnt respond to hormones or herceptin only chemo… so dont have much of a choice… but would rather have chemo to zap it even if it was hormone positive.
Lulu
Here in the west of Ireland they tend to give you chemo only if node poss or over 2cm. Otherwise its just tamoxifen etc.
this interests me,the very slight differences in age and dx resulting in chemo or not. I wonder if I’d been younger (am 50) whether I’d’ve been offered it -24mm idc grade 2 , er + and clear nodes ?
I was quite scared when I read somewhere that in the States any tumour over 1 cm is recommended to have chemo, even node negative. I am ER+, was dx with 18mm grade 2, node neg. No chemo offered but I am 52… I know they work on percentages though and chemo is a harsh treatment so I guess they only recommend it if they think it will make a statistically meaningful difference?
alex
Thanks for all your contributions. Sorry I haven’t posted for a while but I’ve been busy geting my path report and doing all sorts of research. I,ve seen two profs now and discovered some very interesting data particularly from the States. Having a short break at the moment (in keeping with my new philosophy of living more for the day!) and will try and post some info shortly. Unfortunately I’m still as confused as I ever was!!!
Hi Confused
have you made your decision yet? I was diagnosed 16mm invasive lobular, grade 2, clear nodes, ER+ PR+ HER-. I was not recommended or not not recommended (if you see what I mean) chemo but told it was policy to offer chemo to all patients under 55 and the choice was mine. All the consultants - breast surgeon and oncologist firmly sat on the fence and wouldn’t recommend one way or the other but said I didn’t have to have it but if I wanted it, I could. Blimey, what a choice?
I did a lot of research about a test called OncoDX available in the States to help in this exact situation, and had a verbal second opinion from an oncologist running UK trials for this who said in this country so far the test has not helped in decision making and he does not recommend it - he also gave a verbal second opinion that I probably didn’t need chemo. My oncologist was great - I wasted a huge amount of his time discussing it with him.
I was told some hospitals have more aggressive policies for chemo and the Marsden would recommend any lump over 1cm to have chemo, also this is policy in the US, although my surgeon said this is mostly due to them selling everything they can as they get the money and the profit from it!
I have, however, decided to go for it and have had my first session of FEC, five to go. Not too bad so far, counting down the days to losing my hair!
If your onc recommends chemo then surely you must go for it, it’s if they don’t recommend you need to question it!
Hope you get the info you need, and good luck with things
Helen.