 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / January 2004Does three times of chemotherapy enough?
Hi, anybody would like to help me? I have done the operation and took three times of chemotherapy. Berfore the operation, I took also three times of chemotherapy. And my doctor told me that the normal treatment is six times. But she told me NOW to take another three times of chemotherapy. Though I remember that she agreed that I need only take the left three times of chemotherapy after the operation. Is it need recalculate after operation?! I have had enough side effect of the chemotherapy, and I would not like to take the radiation, too. My case is pure breast cancer, in early stage I, the operation result is: all negative but the center of the lump. the lump is 1.5*1.0cm. Before the chemotherapy of the first time, under the molybdenum photo, is 2*3cm. My doctor told me that the chemotherapy is very effective. But now she said: if not take the left 3 times of chemotherapy, I should be responsible for the in case recrudesce years lator on myself, which is bad word for me. What should I do? On my own point of view, I consider the side effect could me more serious to me, but what if I take the "left three times of chemotherapy"? Could you kindly give me some fact or number of probabilities of the different situation? Thank you very much. Green Tea One more small question: My son bring me some protein powder, is it helpful? unless? or may be some mixable effect, there ? Thank again? > Hi, anybody would like to help me? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > One more small question: My son bring me some protein powder, is it helpful? > unless? or may be some mixable effect, there ? Thank again? If you only do half the chemotherapy you will get much less than half the benefit, as there are likely to be cancer cells around which were dormant during the chemo and which will soon wake up and kill you. The main purpose of the chemo is not the shrinking of the tumour before surgery, that is secondary, it is to destroy the free cancer cells floating around in your blood and settling in various organs around your body. I don't know percentages for doing partial chemo but I would guess your survival chances would be less than half what they would be with full chemo, with a 3cm tumour perhaps 30%, to pull a figure out of the air as opposed to perhaps 70% with full chemo. I am not a doctor and I am guessing. If the side effects are really unbearable then talk to your oncologist about what can be done to alleviate them, but don't give up on the chemo, we are talking about life and death here. What sort of side effects are you suffering? If it is a matter nausea and vomiting, what sort of anti-nausea medications are you getting? The side effects of radiation are pretty minor, usually nothing worse than sunburn and a bit of tiredness. The main "side effect" most people have with radiation is the inconvenience of several trips to the hospital when it is far away. As to protein powder, it is only helpful if you are not getting enough protein in your diet, which is a risk if you are a vegetarian. I don't think it will have much effect on the cancer or the chemotherapy either way. But as a general rule, ask your oncologist before taking any supplements or 'natural' remedies during chemotherapy. Tim Jackson > "green tea" <greentea@tom.com> wrote in message >>One more small question: My son bring me some protein powder, is it >> helpful? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But as a general rule, ask your oncologist before taking any supplements or > 'natural' remedies during chemotherapy. Tim gives good advice there; I'd add that if the protein powder contains soy (some do, some don't) you might want to be extra cautious. If you have an estrogen receptor postive (ER+) tumor, there is mixed scientific evidence about whether soy (with its phyto-estrogens) is a good thing or a bad thing. Small amounts of soy shouldn't be a major problem, but some of the protein powders have large amounts of soy. Personally, speaking as a vegetarian, I don't use protein powder because it tends to taste *yucky*! Ann T. Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email >> "green tea" <greentea@tom.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Ann T. >Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email My tumor was ER+, and I'm a low-carb eater, so I use whey-based protien powder as a snack. It isn't too bad mixed with some cream and a few strawberries. Marilyn >>+ >>Personally, speaking as a vegetarian, I don't use protein powder because [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > powder as a snack. It isn't too bad mixed with some cream and a few > strawberries. <Grin> Even *sawdust* isn't too bad mixed with some cream and a few strawberries -- high fiber, too! Seriously, I'll have to check out the whey-based powder. Are you in the U.S.? If so, so do have a brand name or something to look for? Thanks - Ann T. Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email >> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:41:14 -0500, "A. P. Thorsen" >>>Personally, speaking as a vegetarian, I don't use protein powder because >>>it tends to taste *yucky*! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Ann T. You can get the brand name "Designer Protein" at GNC, if you have that chain in the US (I'm in Canada). Designer Protein comes in flavours, like French Vanilla and Chocolate. And I've seen plain unflavoured whey powder in bags at health food stores and "Bulk Barn" stores. Just check to make sure it says whey rather that soy. I never noticed how much soy is sneaking into our food until I got breast cancer and couldn't have it. (Insert nasty comment about Monsanto here) Marilyn >>>On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:41:14 -0500, "A. P. Thorsen" > >>I'll have to check out the whey-based powder. Are you in the > > You can get the brand name "Designer Protein" at GNC, if you have that > chain in the US (I'm in Canada). Thanks, Marilyn -- we do have GNC, and I can also look for the generic at the health food stores. Now that I'm working out a bunch more, I sometimes worry whether I'm getting enough protein. This could be a help! Ann T. Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email >I don't know percentages for doing partial > chemo but I would guess your survival>chances would be less than half what > they would be with full chemo, with a 3cm > tumour perhaps 30%, to pull a figure out of > the air as opposed to perhaps 70% with full > chemo. I am not a doctor and I am guessing. Tim Jackson Tim, what do you mean by "partial chemo" vs "full chemo"? I thought the number of times one gets chemo treatments depends upon each individual case and the type of Chemo your Oncologist decides to use. In my case after the surgery, my Onc decided that 4 Chemo treatments instead of the regular 6 was enough and I had one positive lympnode. He used the Adriamycin, Cytoxen, Taxotere (sp) etc. stuff so I figured he felt he had done enough with the Chemo. Of course I followed it up and still am with the 35 radiation treatments and then will be on Tamoxifen if I can adjust to it.. But my point is that you seem to suggest there is a set number of Chemo treatments necessary for everyone (unless I am misunderstanding your post) and from my experience there was not. Does that mean I should be concerned I did not get enough Chemo? In the end, what it all amounts to is either we trust our Oncologist or we don't. Green Tea....if you are concerned about what your Oncologist wants to do with extra Chemo, why don't you get a second opinion? That would help you to know if you really need to undergo more Chemo. As Tim stated, this is your life your are talking. I think getting a second opinion would at least let you know if the extra Chemo is truly necessary. Bea > >I don't know percentages for doing partial > > chemo but I would guess your survival>chances would be less than half [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > number of times one gets chemo treatments depends upon each individual > case and the type of Chemo your Oncologist decides to use. ... > But my point is that you seem to suggest there > is a set number of Chemo treatments necessary for everyone (unless I am > misunderstanding your post) and from my experience there was not. Does > that mean I should be concerned I did not get enough Chemo? I mean the full course of the treatment as prescribed by the oncologist. What is a sufficient number of doses depends on how often they are given, and the division rate of the cancer (which may not be known). A more fast-growing cancer could, at least in theory, be hit by a shorter regime of chemotherapy. As it is not possible to know the division rate accurately, I think there must be a certain amount of rule-of-thumb or one-size-fits-all prescribing. In this case the oncologist was clearly unhappy about curtailing the treatment, and so I presume she thought that the duration was inadequate to its purpose. Tim Tim, 20 years ago when I had adriamycin/cytoxan it was 12 doses over a year. When I wanted to give up in the middle I was told that once it was given, and stopped, it couldn't be given again (presumably it would be ineffective??). I had to take all the doses now, and never have it again; or stop now and still never have it again (with the same drugs). That may be what is meant. IMHO Ann > Tim, > 20 years ago when I had adriamycin/cytoxan it was 12 doses over a year. When > I wanted to give up in the middle I was told that once it was given, and > stopped, it couldn't be given again (presumably it would be ineffective??). > I had to take all the doses now, and never have it again; or stop now and > still never have it again (with the same drugs). That may be what is meant. Well there is a lifetime limit for A/C and most chemo combinations. I think current treatment plans leave some room for manoeuvre, but if you have done half a course then there probably isn't room for another whole one without a major risk of serious side effects, and as I was explaining, two half courses is nothing like as effective as one whole one because of synchronisation. I'm not sure how half an old 12-month sequence would compare to a modern 6-month one. Tim |
Reply to this Message |
 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.