Prophylactic Chemo a possibility? {rps and Cons, please.

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

turtletrot1 - 30 Dec 2005 16:54 GMT

I have been wondering, since everytime Franzi had Xeloda for his chemo,
the cancer disappeared. When he stopped it, it was back in 3 months.
If he had stayed on the Xeloda, would the (colorectal) cancer stayed in
abeyance? Is there any kind of study on this? Too late for us, but
hopefullly could help someone. What is the reasoning for the lenght of
time for a particular protocol .....3months, 6 months, etc.?

Reply to this Message

Steph - 30 Dec 2005 18:38 GMT

>I have been wondering, since everytime Franzi had Xeloda for his chemo,
> the cancer disappeared. When he stopped it, it was back in 3 months.
> If he had stayed on the Xeloda, would the (colorectal) cancer stayed in
> abeyance? Is there any kind of study on this? Too late for us, but
> hopefullly could help someone. What is the reasoning for the lenght of
> time for a particular protocol .....3months, 6 months, etc.?

No, it wouldn't work.
Eventually the tumour becomes resistant, and the toxicity of the chemo
accumulates.

Reply to this Message

Emily - 30 Dec 2005 21:52 GMT

steph@vancouvers.island said...

> >I have been wondering, since everytime Franzi had Xeloda for his chemo,
> > the cancer disappeared. When he stopped it, it was back in 3 months.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Eventually the tumour becomes resistant, and the toxicity of the chemo
> accumulates.

... which in a strange way is maybe good news for you Turtletrot,
because it means that everything that could reasonably be done /was/
done and therefore there should be no 'what ifs' lurking at the back of
your mind.

{{{{{Hugs}}}}}

Signature

Em, hoping she's not said the wrong thing.

Reply to this Message

turtletrot1 - 30 Dec 2005 23:26 GMT

How do we know that? How long would eventually be? Yardstick?
Cumulative effects - we did not notice any in particular other than that
food tastes "funny" effect. THe FOLFOX7 and the platin were really
toxic.
No, I do not have any second guesses, etc. I do believe all that coul
be done with the knowledge at hand at the time, was done. I just
wondered if there were trials along this line ever and the outcome. I
read alot even now and follow advances. But thought probably something
along that line was done earlier.
We had superior practicians here - and I would not have found better
anywhere. Of that I am sure.
Thanks for all the support here and at UOAA. Blessings to all. I
admire you all so much for your bravery and kindness both to me and
each other.
I am sometimes taken aback by the occasional vindictive and nasties that
appear. But as "J" said, no censorship here.

Reply to this Message

Steph - 31 Dec 2005 00:35 GMT

> How do we know that? How long would eventually be? Yardstick?
> Cumulative effects - we did not notice any in particular other than that
> food tastes "funny" effect. THe FOLFOX7 and the platin were really
> toxic.

That's because the chemo was stopped before unacceptable toxicity occurred.
And that is known from phase II trials fro pretty well all new chemo
regimes.

> No, I do not have any second guesses, etc. I do believe all that coul
> be done with the knowledge at hand at the time, was done. I just
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Sent via Health Newsgroups
> http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

Reply to this Message

J - 31 Dec 2005 00:57 GMT

> "turtletrot1" <marielmsheen@cs.com> wrote in message
>
> > How do we know that? How long would eventually be? Yardstick?

I think she wants to know how long it takes for chemotherapy resistance to
occur.
Does it vary per (type of) cancer?
Does it vary according to the size and growth of a tumor /doubling time?
J

> > Cumulative effects - we did not notice any in particular other than that
> > food tastes "funny" effect. THe FOLFOX7 and the platin were really
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> And that is known from phase II trials fro pretty well all new chemo
> regimes.

Reply to this Message