Hi all, I started on Letrozole three months ago with the view that if the side effects were tolerable and settle down then I may as well take it. I have tolerable side effects but they are unpleasant so I don’t necessarily want to keep taking it if they continue. I was also offered bisphosphonates to counteract the long term side effects (osteoporosis) and reduce my risk of bone metastasis. I have been astonished by the lack of information from oncology on statistics that back up the prescribing of these pretty nasty drugs. I used Predict which gave a miniscule increase in my chances of five and ten year disease free survival with these drugs. I wrote to an eminent academic who’s stats were miles away (much more compelling) than those suggested by Predict. I don’t understand why the oncology stats vary from the academic stats as they should stem from the same source.
So my questions to anyone who has a view are: Why do oncologists think nasty drugs are worth taking for almost no additional benefit? Why do so many people take Letrozole when the benefits seem to be massively outweighed by unpleasant side effects and other debilitating long term conditions. Is it that people just blindly trust what they are told or am I missing something? It would be easy to go down the conspiracy theory route that there is simply big money to be made in big pharma!!
Is there anyone out there who has declined Letrozole because of a perceived low benefit vs risk? I would love to hear from anyone else who is further down the line having declined it, from anyone who is having similar concerns or from anyone who understands and can help me to get the answers I need to make decisions for my long term treatment.
Thanks All