> "J" <macyinno@nospam.inv> wrote in message
> > How does a patient find out " the natural history of their type of cancer"
> > ?
> > J
>
> Ask the oncologist?
I guess if they rememeber to ask.
> It's not a trivial question, as the "natural history" of diseases is more
> and more disturbed by treatment.
Meaning? if they don't get it right the first time, the clones that escape can
be aggressive?
Thanks Steph,
J
Steph - 17 Jul 2006 03:59 GMT
>> "J" <macyinno@nospam.inv> wrote in message
>> > How does a patient find out " the natural history of their type of
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Thanks Steph,
> J
Meaning there aren't many studies in the literature of treated individuals
vs untreated, for fairly obvious reasons. There are even less randomised
studies.................
So we don't really have a handle on the natural history of most cancers, but
when we do, it's clear that the effects of treatment are less impressive
than we think............
J - 17 Jul 2006 11:08 GMT
> "J" <macyinno@nospam.inv> wrote in message
> >
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> when we do, it's clear that the effects of treatment are less impressive
> than we think............
Steph, I've been meaning to ask, for the benefit of readers, in the archives,
you wrote that some tumors respond to chemo and others don't (in the same
person).
Are the ones that respond to chemo, the ones that have a blood supply? (and the
other tumors are feeding on local tissue).
Steph - 17 Jul 2006 15:50 GMT
>> "J" <macyinno@nospam.inv> wrote in message
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> (and the
> other tumors are feeding on local tissue).
There are many reasons why different mets respond differently.
Blood supply may be an issue, but more likely the mets are different clones
of cells