Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / June 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Survivors of Adriamycin/Cytoxin, Taxol, Arimidex & Radiation?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
su-texas@webtv.net - 20 Jun 2005 04:55 GMT
Who else here had the same breast cancer treatments I did? And when?

Thanks.

Susan, Su_Texas
sscharf - 20 Jun 2005 11:15 GMT
I had Adriamycin/Cytoxin, Taxol and Arimidex.  I chose to have chemo
before surgery for my breast cancer.  Adriamyicin did not show good
results so was stopped 1 cycle short of completion.  Taxol broke up the
tumors quickly.  At surgery there did reamain microscopic nests of live
carcinoma, which I understand is normal.  I was given Arimidex but
couldn't take it because it game me too much pain.  I also tried
Tamoxifen, but felt sick all the time with it.  I am taking Femara
which I have adjusted to. It took me many months to get over chemo
effects and I am still not convinced that I am over it. Good Luck!

Suzanne

> Who else here had the same breast cancer treatments I did? And when?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Susan, Su_Texas
A. P. Thorsen - 20 Jun 2005 15:01 GMT
> Who else here had the same breast cancer treatments I did? And when?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Susan, Su_Texas

I think we're pretty similar as to treatment.

I had bilateral mastectomies (one modified radical, one simple),
Adriamycin/Cytoxan (4 times 3 weeks schedule), Taxol (ditto), 6 weeks
radiation (to the MRM side), and about 2 years Tamoxifen, then switched
to Arimidex (which I've been taking for around 2 years now, I think).

Depending on who you talk to, I was stage III or stage II at diagnosis.
 (I had multifocal BC, 5 tumors in one breast and one in the other,
which  makes staging murky.  Largest tumor was 3.1 cm.)  One lymph node
was positive.

I was diagnosed in September, 2000, had sugery in early October, started
chemo at the end of October.  Started radiation maybe 3-4 weeks after
the 6 months of chemo was over.

I have been lucky enough not to have had the violent reactions you
report, to the drugs we've both taken.

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email
Pat from Apple Valley, CA - 20 Jun 2005 19:25 GMT
> Who else here had the same breast cancer treatments I did? And when?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Susan, Su_Texas
> After discovering I had Lubular Carcinoma, I had a lumphectomy and 4 of
15 lymph nodes positive, in 2000. I had 4 A/C ( I did have MUGA scan to
see if my heart was strong enough) 37 radiation and 4 Taxol. I was
listed as a Stage IIB. ( MY Er was Slightly Pos) I took Tamoxifen for
about 1-1/2 years with my first Onc, changed Ins Carriers and got a new
Onc. stopped when my tumor marker numbers started to go up. I then
wasn't prescribed anything until my TM numbers went up to 1300. Was then
given Arimidex. Took that for about 6 months until my TM numbers reached
2400. Then changed Ins Carriers and Onc's. Then had 8 or 9 treatments in
2003 of taxotere until it quit working then 3 of Cis-Platin and
Gencitibine, but it never worked now I am taking an oral chemo Etoposide
and Erythropoietin and again it seems to be lowering the numbers.
    I did have a BIG problem with the number 2 Onc. that prescribed the
Arimidex. I couldn't get him to order the Tumer Marker Test, CA 27.29.
He kept telling me that thay did nothing for the disease. His recourse
was to tell me that I would have a choice to either treat for the
duration of my life and then die or wait until the end and treat then
die. The end would be the same but I could live a more normal life for a
short duration. As soon as my numbers went to 2400 and I could change
insurance carriers I went to the third Ins. carrier and a NEW Onc. He
immediately took me off the Arimidex, Saying " That is obviously NOT
working!" And started the chemo. I have extensive bone mets and while
with the earlier Onc had Liver involvement, (which did not show up in my
last CT Scan of 3 months ago) So maybe the spots are gone, maybe not.
Who knows? Perhaps the Radiation Tech. just didn't note them. They were
looking at my pancreas.
    I think my first Onc was REALLY trying to KILL me!! He let the numbers
sky rocket before even treating. It has been a struggle to hold my own
while getting all these chemo treatments, about 16 for this last year,
but I feel pretty good, I am NOT dead and the only thing that I can
complain about is the constant pain from the bone mets. I take my
Vicodan and sleeping pills, function well and am getting ready to take a
road trip with my Daughter. I may be miserable for a good part of the
time, but I know my trips are numbered and want to take advantage of my
current health. Since I am NOW stage IV I know I don't have that long
left to enjoy life, but as long as I can stay reasonably well feeling I
will continue the fight. I know If I had stayed with the last Onc. I
would be dead by now. The Onc. I have now, orders a CA27.29 aftr every
chemo treatment..I am now down again to the 800's..It will never be 35,
but ......
    Good Luch on your treatment SU Texas. I have warned as many as I can
about the second Dr. But some just don't have a choice and have to take
who they can get. Where I live there are only 3 Oncologists and if that
is the type of ins. you have you only have 1 choice. I did have the
optiion to travel to another location to get a better facility but that
is not the case with everyone.
    Pat From Apple Valley, CA
Pat from Apple Valley, CA - 20 Jun 2005 19:28 GMT
>> Who else here had the same breast cancer treatments I did? And when?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> is not the case with everyone.
>     Pat From Apple Valley, CA

Sorry That was 2004, not 2003 that I started the second Chemo
treatments..Continueing until today...Pat
Bea - - 20 Jun 2005 21:19 GMT
What amazes me is that so many of you seem to be told what they were
giving you.  I had no idea what the Chemo existed of or how dangerous it
could be until a dear friend (also a bc patient) wrote me and told me I
should find out.  I then found I was being given the choice group listed
above but when I asked for a Muga scan was told "you don't need it".
After the Chemo when I asked my cardiologist for a Muga scan to make
sure the Adriamycin did not damage my heart, I was told again "you don't
need it".    So.....what does one do?   Give oneself a Muga scan?  

Since then I have changed Oncologist and Cardiologist and just hope the
great Chemo and Radiation treatments I got did not do me any long
lasting damage.  

I love it when tv advertisements tell us to be sure to talk about our
medications with our doctor.  WHO sees a doctor long enough to talk to
them??  Hubby timed my recent Oncologist visit.  We waited over 2 hours
for him to grace us with his presence and he gave me 2 minutes of his
time!!  I think I may have forced another 2 minutes out of him when I
discussed the new Zometa side effects with him.  I was shocked to hear
he already had heard about  it!
So much for the good ole USA and our medical care.  

Sure hope we get more positive posters on this thread.  I would hate to
think Su-Texas and I are not just great isolated cases!

Bea
Eva - 21 Jun 2005 05:19 GMT
> What amazes me is that so many of you seem to be told what they were
> giving you.  I had no idea what the Chemo existed of or how dangerous it
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Sure hope we get more positive posters on this thread.  I would hate to
> think Su-Texas and I are not just great isolated cases!
----------
My oncologist met with me and my boyfriend for more than an hour prior to
beginning treatment.  She went over all of the treatment options.  She gave
me pamphlets on every drug I would be taking.  She told us about the most
common side effects.  Every time I came in for a chemo treatment she
examined me first and discussed my symptoms with me.   She ordered a MUGA
(heart scan) and a full-body PET scan for me before beginning treatment.
During the course of treatment I've had 3 echocardiograms and 2 Doppler
studies on my legs to check for possible blood clots, and I had blood drawn
at every treatment and analyzed right there in her office.

And I have lousy health insurance too--Aetna, all the doctors make remarks
about how much they hate Aetna.

l guess I'm lucky to live in New York.  And here I always thought I was
*unlucky* to have to live in New York.

Eva
Mary Fisher - 21 Jun 2005 09:17 GMT
> And I have lousy health insurance too--Aetna, all the doctors make remarks
> about how much they hate Aetna.

Don't you have a choice of which insurance to buy?

Mary
A. P. Thorsen - 21 Jun 2005 16:43 GMT
>>And I have lousy health insurance too--Aetna, all the doctors make remarks
>>about how much they hate Aetna.
>
> Don't you have a choice of which insurance to buy?

For most of us, we get health insurance through our employer, who buys a
"group plan" that covers everyone.  Really big employers sometimes offer
a choice of insurers, but this is probably more the exception than the
norm.  I can choose between two health different insurers, for example,
and can change my mind once a year during an "open enrollment" period.

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email
Mary Fisher - 21 Jun 2005 17:12 GMT
>>>And I have lousy health insurance too--Aetna, all the doctors make
>>>remarks
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> For most of us, we get health insurance through our employer, who buys a
> "group plan" that covers everyone.

Oh I see, thanks.

> Really big employers sometimes offer a choice of insurers, but this is
> probably more the exception than the norm.  I can choose between two
> health different insurers, for example, and can change my mind once a year
> during an "open enrollment" period.

What if you don't have an employer?

Mary

> Ann T.
> Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email
A. P. Thorsen - 21 Jun 2005 20:12 GMT
>>>>And I have lousy health insurance too--Aetna, all the doctors make
>>>>remarks
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> What if you don't have an employer?

BoyOhBoy, you sure ask complicated questions!  (Didn't I just hear you
say "Explain the U.S. health insurance system."?)  What follows is an
oversimplified answer from a non-expert.  (Don't ask me; I just live here!)

First, not all employers offer health insurance.  It's a "fringe
benefit" that employers may offer along with wages to attract good
employees and induce them to stay.  Usually, only full time employees
get full fringe benefits, but who gets what depends on the employer.

Some employers offer a group health insurance plan (cheaper than the
plans that could be purchased by individuals on their own) but require
the employee to pay for part or all of the insurance, or require
"co-pays" (e.g., I pay a $10 per doctors' office visit).

There are also other employer-offered programs that help with health
care costs, such as "health care spending accounts".  These allow you to
set aside money from your paycheck to pay for health care costs (such as
co-pays or non-covered expenses), without having to pay income tax on
that part of your income.  Not all employers offer these, either.

Ironically, higher-paying employers typically offer better fringe
benefits, so lower-paid or part-time employees are probably more likely
to be subject to out-of-pocket health care costs.  *If* an employer
offers health insurance, there are various regulatory provisions about
how they must handle it, basically so that it's non-discriminatory, has
"tide me over" provisions for people who leave employment, etc.

If you don't have an employer, or your employer doesn't give you health
insurance, perhaps:

1.  You're independently wealthy (lucky you), or self-employed,or
otherwise can scrape up the bucks, and buy your health insurance on your
own, either an individual plan or through some affiliated group plan.
It's expensive, with costs varying depending on where you live, who you
are (demographically), etc.  Think several hundred dollars per month,
potentially.

or

2.  You're very poor and are eligible for some kind of governmental
program that helps with health care costs, such as Medicaid.

or

3.  You're retired or disabled, and eligible for a governmental program
that helps with health care costs, such as Medicare (not the same as
Medicaid).  You may or may not have "medicare supplemental insurance"
through your (former) employer, or that you purchase on your own, to
help with things not covered by Medicare.

or

4.  You're in the armed forces or are in the immediate family of someone
in the armed forces, and get some benefits from their health care system.

or

5.  You're screwed.

The things that make people criticize the U.S. system are scenario #5,
and/or the various points where you can have co-pays, out-of-pocket
costs, or coverage limitations that could potentially cost you more
money than you have.  There are a host of gap-filler compassionate
programs, charities, etc., but finding them and qualifying can be
majorly bureaucratic just when you least need it.

In 2003 (most recent year for which government stats are available),
15.6% of people weren't covered by health insurance.  According to
census bureau stats, 60.4% were covered by employment-based health
insurance, 68.6% by some type of private health insurance
(employment-based, self-purchased, etc.), 26.6% by government programs
(12.4% Medicaid, 13.7% Medicare).

I've read (but can't find census stats that relate to it) that there's
economic behavior afoot in the uninsured group, that is, some portion of
the un-insured who technically could afford insurance, but decide
(perhaps because they're young/healthy) to bet on the proposition that
they won't have catastrophic illness, and elect to spend their money
elsewhere.

Let the corrections (and complaints) begin . . . .

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email
Mary Fisher - 21 Jun 2005 21:12 GMT
>> What if you don't have an employer?
>
> BoyOhBoy, you sure ask complicated questions!

Oh - I'm sorry ... <feeling very small>

> (Didn't I just hear you say "Explain the U.S. health insurance system."?)

... no ...

> What follows is an oversimplified answer from a non-expert.  (Don't ask
> me; I just live here!)

I'm much the same with our health system!

> First, not all employers offer health insurance.  It's a "fringe benefit"
> that employers may offer along with wages to attract good employees and
> induce them to stay.  Usually, only full time employees get full fringe
> benefits, but who gets what depends on the employer.

Oh.

> Some employers offer a group health insurance plan (cheaper than the plans
> that could be purchased by individuals on their own) but require the
> employee to pay for part or all of the insurance, or require "co-pays"
> (e.g., I pay a $10 per doctors' office visit).

er ... ?

> There are also other employer-offered programs that help with health care
> costs, such as "health care spending accounts".  These allow you to set
> aside money from your paycheck to pay for health care costs (such as
> co-pays or non-covered expenses), without having to pay income tax on that
> part of your income.  Not all employers offer these, either.

... I'm becoming confused ...

> Ironically, higher-paying employers typically offer better fringe
> benefits, so lower-paid or part-time employees are probably more likely to
> be subject to out-of-pocket health care costs.  *If* an employer offers
> health insurance, there are various regulatory provisions about how they
> must handle it, basically so that it's non-discriminatory, has "tide me
> over" provisions for people who leave employment, etc.

... my brain's beginning to hurt...

> If you don't have an employer, or your employer doesn't give you health
> insurance, perhaps:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> (demographically), etc.  Think several hundred dollars per month,
> potentially.

eek ...

> or
>
> 2.  You're very poor and are eligible for some kind of governmental
> program that helps with health care costs, such as Medicaid.

And is that adequate?

> or
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> through your (former) employer, or that you purchase on your own, to help
> with things not covered by Medicare.

I'm definitely losing it ...

> or
>
> 4.  You're in the armed forces or are in the immediate family of someone
> in the armed forces, and get some benefits from their health care system.

Ah, yes, we have a son in the RAF, he gets excellent care ...

> or
>
> 5.  You're screwed.

Huh?

> The things that make people criticize the U.S. system are scenario #5,
> and/or the various points where you can have co-pays, out-of-pocket costs,
> or coverage limitations that could potentially cost you more money than
> you have.  There are a host of gap-filler compassionate programs,
> charities, etc., but finding them and qualifying can be majorly
> bureaucratic just when you least need it.

I wish I understood English :-)

> In 2003 (most recent year for which government stats are available), 15.6%
> of people weren't covered by health insurance.  According to census bureau
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> because they're young/healthy) to bet on the proposition that they won't
> have catastrophic illness, and elect to spend their money elsewhere.

Hmm. that sounds familiar - not in healthcare terms but in others. Like
pensions.

We used to have (and still theoretically have) state pensions to which we
pay throughout our working lives. If we don't work we have credits towards a
very basic pension (which I have) which can be supplemented by various -
er - supplements. I don't claim those. But my husband has the state pension
and we find that we can live very well on it without extras. Most people
complain that it isn't enough and claim all sorts of other benefits even if
they're fraudulent- but don't get me going on that matter!

> Let the corrections (and complaints) begin . . . .

LOL!

Thanks, Ann, I'll save your post and refer to it. It's the most
comprehensive explanation I've ever heard.

Mary
A. P. Thorsen - 21 Jun 2005 21:50 GMT
<so much snippage below that this won't make sense if you're not
following the thread>

>>Some employers offer a group health insurance plan (cheaper than the plans
>>that could be purchased by individuals on their own) but require the
>>employee to pay for part or all of the insurance, or require "co-pays"
>>(e.g., I pay a $10 per doctors' office visit).
>
> er ... ?

With co-pays, you pay a small (?) portion of the cost for each instance
of consuming certain health care services.  It's a cost-containment
notion, but theoretically mainly works through the individual having
some personal motivation to avoid hypochondriacal behavior: When health
care is "free", it's perceived that some people go running to the doc
every time they have a hangnail.

>>2.  You're very poor and are eligible for some kind of governmental
>>program that helps with health care costs, such as Medicaid.
>
> And is that adequate?

Some would say yes, some no.  I've never been on it, or known anyone
(well enough to answer) who was on it, so I don't know.  Most people I
know fall in the segment that has employer-provided health insurance, or
Medicare with supplemental insurance.

>>5.  You're screwed.
>
> Huh?

If you don't have insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, military coverage, or
anything, and you have a serious health problem, direct pay for health
services is *very* expensive.  IIRC, *one* chemo treatment for me would
cost between $1000-$2000.  A short hospital stay is a
multi-thousand-dollar adventure, even before you add in something fancy
like surgery.

I've read that people go broke, or are saddled with long-term debt (I
can't say I know anyone in these situations).  Sometimes (I've read),
people have trouble getting treatment, if they can't demonstrate they
can pay for it.  To get to scenario #5 (you're screwed), you have to
have no (or grossly inadequate) insurance, and have health care costs
that are "major" in terms of your income/savings.

Oh - and you get an income tax deduction for medical expenses that
exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income (essentially, you reduce your
taxable income by the amount of those excess expenses, before you figure
your tax).   The cost of insurance is eligible to be deducted.

And noNoNO, I *won't* explain what "ajdusted gross income" is, or how
you figure your taxes.  If you thought health insurance was complicated,
you don't wanna know about the tax code!

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email
Teddy - 22 Jun 2005 10:28 GMT
For instance: I'm a widow 69 who had a mastectomy last year. I have
Medicare and supplemental ins. ($200 a mo.) and my Social Security is
$912. a month. I live in a very small town where I can't find
employment. My fence is falling down, the deck is rotting away, the
storage bldgs. and the house need repainting, etc. I keep dipping into
my late husbands life ins. since 88. I've had many temporary and part
time jobs, sold jewelry, crafts, etc. even had a shop. Sorry.  Just had
to vent.
A. P. Thorsen - 22 Jun 2005 14:30 GMT
> For instance: I'm a widow 69 who had a mastectomy last year. I have
> Medicare and supplemental ins. ($200 a mo.) and my Social Security is
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> time jobs, sold jewelry, crafts, etc. even had a shop. Sorry.  Just had
> to vent.

Don't apologize!  I'm glad you weighed in.  When our friend Mary in the
UK asked about how insurance works here, I knew I was not in a good
position to give a balanced view (I'm lucky enough to be on the happy
side of the insurance question, with good employer-provided coverage).

I would expect the situation to be quite dire at times for those not as
lucky, but simply had no confirmed info to share (hate just passing on
what I read in the media as "truth", when it so often misrepresents).

Oh -- and it's good to vent sometimes!  <grin>

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email
Joan Kaapke - 22 Jun 2005 15:09 GMT
>> For instance: I'm a widow 69 who had a mastectomy last year. I have
>> Medicare and supplemental ins. ($200 a mo.) and my Social Security is
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Ann T.
> Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email

We have to pay over $70 a month now for Medicare coverage.  I am lucky that
my retirement pension includes free insurance through Blue Cross, which
supplements Medicare.  Four years ago, my son became too ill to work, so
lost his insurance and income.  Because he is diabetic, no company will
insure him, even if it were affordable.  He does not qualify for Medicaid,
so he receives indigent care through the County clinic.  It is not the best,
and he has to wait hours for his appointments, but he gets his prescriptions
for $7.50 each, and pays $15 for each office visit.  I support him and pay
all the co-payments for him.  If he should have to be hospitalized, the
co-payment would be $128.  This was the only option for him, in order to get
the treatment he needs.

Joan
Joan Kaapke - 21 Jun 2005 15:16 GMT
>> What amazes me is that so many of you seem to be told what they were
>> giving you.  I had no idea what the Chemo existed of or how dangerous it
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>
> Eva

I met with the onc 3 times before I had the first, and only chemo treatment.
He gave me a booklet describing the drugs I would be given, and the possible
side effects.  I later decided not to take chemo, but I was fully informed.
My radiation oncologist met for an hour with my sister and me, and went over
my lab results, and proposed treatment with us.  She then gave us each a hug
before we left.  I had 35 radiation treatments - IMRT - with no side
effects.  I have found most of my doctors willing to answer questions, or to
give written information and instructions.  I live in Texas.

Joan

Joan
Tim Jackson - 21 Jun 2005 09:22 GMT
> What amazes me is that so many of you seem to be told what they were
> giving you.  I had no idea what the Chemo existed of or how dangerous it
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> sure the Adriamycin did not damage my heart, I was told again "you don't
> need it".    So.....what does one do?   Give oneself a Muga scan?  

MUGA is an isotope scan, so adds to your lifetime radiation dose and
carries a small risk of creating cancers.  So you wouldn't want to use
it unnecessarily or where another simpler non-invasive test such as an
echocardiogram or electrocardiogram would suffice.  It is also rather
expensive.

Tim Jackson
su-texas@webtv.net - 21 Jun 2005 18:01 GMT
MUGA is an isotope scan, so adds to your lifetime radiation dose and
carries a small risk of creating cancers. So you wouldn't want to use it
unnecessarily or where another simpler non-invasive test such as an
echocardiogram or electrocardiogram would suffice. It is also rather
expensive.
Tim Jackson

===========================

An ECHOcardiogram Or Nothing

I believe they did a MUGA test, to prove to me there was no heart
damage.

Either the MUGA test isn't any good, or the docs lied abut the results
(very common here), or they never looked at the results or read the
report (very common here), or whatever.

When I would get a copy of a report, it would say something like "No
Change From Previous Reports". When I'd ask for a more detailed
explanation & previous reports, the docs would say No.

The docs here will refuse to see anything, until a test is placed before
them which they can't overlook, can't ignore as usual.

The only heart test that seems to get their attention, is the
ECHOcardiogram.

Nothing else.

Most docs won't tell you about this test, or they'll say it's no good,
or they'll refuse to schedule it, or they'll say they don't order that
kind of test, ....... or they'll insist you keep re-doing other tests
(CAT, xray) which never worked (never show anything!), or whatever.

These special interest groups (docs, hospitals, PHARMA companies), .....
are not called the Medical Industry for nothing.

They're heavy-duty harsh, hard-core thieves & thugs with power. And
they're Not working for us.

As far as I can tell, the cancer doctors (oncologists) will overlook any
health problems they can (& esp. those they cause), ...... until forced
by another doctor's testing & reports to face them.

Since most docs here gang-bang, protect & cover for each other no matter
what, ..... it's extremely difficult to get any good testing &
diagnosis.

The only heart test they'll acknowledge, is the ECHOcardiogram.  Not a
CAT, PET, xray, stethoscope, EKG, ....

Just the ECHOcardiogram.

--------------------

We need to get back the rights to sue the Medical Industry, for the harm
they're knowingly doing.

Only when there are significant & enforceable penalties for wrongdoing,
can people in power (doctors/etc) be controlled, ..... can their "wings"
(their criminal & sadistic acts, their flagrant abuse of power &
privilege, their enjoyment of this & the $$$ for it) get "clipped".

-------------------

Perhaps any benefits or added longevity seen in some breast cancer
patients, is due to heart damage, ...... due to the inability of the
blood supply to get to the cancerous tumors good enough to nourish them?

---------------------

In Texas & Louisiana, the docs determine your cancer care (chemotherapy,
radiation, estrogen blockers), ...... then use scare tactics (you
haven't a chance, ...... you won't survive unless you trust me, & do
what I say, ....... I'm a doctor, I know what I'm doing), to get you to
cooperate.

This is Not good Cancer Care. It's fraud being pushed & practiced by a
govt-protected Monopoly, the Medical Industry.

Susan, Su_Texas   my opinions
jmh - 21 Jun 2005 20:16 GMT
> MUGA is an isotope scan, so adds to your lifetime radiation dose and
> carries a small risk of creating cancers. So you wouldn't want to use it
[quoted text clipped - 78 lines]
>
> Susan, Su_Texas   my opinions

Susan,
   A diagnosis of Stage 3 breast cancer is very serious.  You had
lympho-vascular involvement, and + nodes.  You deserved the best treatment
available for that diagnosis, and you got it.  There are always risks.  You
wrote on Nov. 23, 2003, "I do know that the cancer treatments can damage the
heart".  If you had a MUGA (you 'believe' you did)  I think you will find
that you fell within the 'OK' range.  Or the benefit far outweighs the risk
range.  I'm very sorry, but cardiac damage does happen even under the most
ideal conditions.  No one knows ahead of time.  This does not mean the Dr or
the medicines are evil!  It doesn't mean the Dr is at fault!  We aren't at
the point where a Dr can wave a magic wand and cure you.  We will never
reach that point.  It will always take work to keep the cancer at bay.  And
sometimes, the work will not keep you NED.  This isn't anyones fault.  You
just do the best you can with what you have to work with.  And it won't
always work.
Mary Fisher - 21 Jun 2005 21:15 GMT
> Perhaps any benefits or added longevity seen in some breast cancer
> patients, is due to heart damage, ...... due to the inability of the
> blood supply to get to the cancerous tumors good enough to nourish them?

That's an interesting theory, what do you think could be the solution to
that? Is there another treatment which could solve both conditions?

Mary
Eva - 22 Jun 2005 01:06 GMT
The problem with echocardiograms is that they are scored by the individual
operator of the machine.  So two operators may score the same echocardiogram
differently.  My "ejection fraction" appeared to drop 10 points over a 3
month period, but when the test was repeated on the same machine as the
first test, and with the same operator as the first test, my score was only
5 points lower, not 10.
Eva
---------------

> MUGA is an isotope scan, so adds to your lifetime radiation dose and
> carries a small risk of creating cancers. So you wouldn't want to use it
[quoted text clipped - 78 lines]
>
> Susan, Su_Texas   my opinions
Bea - - 22 Jun 2005 02:51 GMT
>In Texas & Louisiana, the docs determine your
> cancer care (chemotherapy, radiation,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> ....... I'm a doctor, I know what I'm doing), to
> get you to cooperate.

Wow!  Su, you must have been taping my appointment with my new
Oncologist.  That was just the tactics he used on me to get me to take
the Arimidex.  And I must say, it worked!  I just hope the part about
"he knows what he is doing" is accurate or I could be in real trouble.
But honestly, what choice do we really have?  

Maybe one day the US will have a "real" medical advocacy group which
will help bring about good medical care from all doctors and weed out
the problem doctors.  Until then, we just need to take charge of our own
medical care and learn as much as we can about our own illness, IMO.  

Bea
Chris - 21 Jun 2005 00:30 GMT
Had that as well as Gemzar, Doxil, Xeloda, Tamoxifen and Faslodex.

Chris

> Who else here had the same breast cancer treatments I did? And when?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Susan, Su_Texas
Annie - 27 Jun 2005 08:48 GMT
Sue,
I had CMF the first time in 99. I had 6 months of treatments, given
every 3 weeks. I then had the recur in 11/02. I was given Adrimycin and
Cytoxan for 4 treatments.[jan-march of 2003] I finished up with 4
treatments of Taxotere, completing treatment in June of 2003. These
were also 3 weeks apart.
I'm doing very well. I've noticed that the arthritis is worse, but I'd
have had that anyway, as my mother has it, and my grandmother had it.
That's about all I can say that I have trouble with...I've had a marked
improvement in my IBS [since the last round of chemo] that I've had
since I was 26 years old.And that is another blessing. My onco told me
that what I had for cheom would probably help, and it did.
Take care/God bless
annie

I think it's a very small price to pay for still being here to share
time with family/friends and 2 new grandchildren since I was dx the
first time. Annora born in 2/2000, and Harry born in August of last
year.
Mary Fisher - 27 Jun 2005 09:35 GMT
> Sue,

> I think it's a very small price to pay for still being here to share
> time with family/friends and 2 new grandchildren since I was dx the
> first time. Annora born in 2/2000, and Harry born in August of last
> year.

Yes, that's something which isn't stressed enough. So what if there are some
unpleasant side effects? While we hurt we live.

I was left with some problems as the result of brain surgery in 1993.
Without that surgery I'd have become paralysed, gone mad and died. I'm not
paralysed and live. Two of three is good :-)

Mary
marilyn@utrillo.ac - 27 Jun 2005 12:00 GMT
>I was left with some problems as the result of brain surgery in 1993.
>Without that surgery I'd have become paralysed, gone mad and died. I'm not
>paralysed and live. Two of three is good :-)
>
>Mary

LOL.
alex - 27 Jun 2005 23:37 GMT
Annie.
Great to hear from you an hope all is going well. Congrads on the new
addition.
Alex
Annie - 27 Jun 2005 08:51 GMT
OOPS! SorrySue,...
I forgot to post that I also had 33 radiation treatments the first time
in 99. 25 were to the whole breast and the last 8 were what they call a
"boost" and that's just to the "tumor bed"
I had mastectomy and recon the second time [11/02], and then just chemo
treatments after everything was healed and saline fills were completed.
Take care/God bless
annie
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.