 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Cancer / October 2006About group- September 06
Some groups have a monthly summary. I thought it would be interest to start one. Total Posts: 948 Posts up from last year's 845, but annual posts are down. Top Posters this month J- not a caregiver or cancer survivor -192 posts - Canadian Figger- a former caregiver of cancer patient- 103 ( posting under 2 different ids)- US Alex- cancer survivor - 60 ( 3 different IDS)- US Steph- a Radiation Oncologist- 54- Canadian Betsy - cancer survivor- 53 US Matti- not a caregiver or cancer survivor -41- Finland Alayne - former caregiver - 31- UK Topics: End of Life issues and Hospice Many reposting of current articles Updates on Penny. Cancer patients with questions. Many spammers. Just interesting to see that the majority of posters do not have cancer are caregivers. Also interesting the international flavor of this group. I think it is amazing that the former caregivers are trying to help others with cancer even after their losses. It is a tribute to the human experience even after a big loss people what to share their experiences and hopefully make it a bit easier for others. - >Some groups have a monthly summary. I thought it would be interest to start >one. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Betsy - cancer survivor- 53 US >Matti- not a caregiver or cancer survivor -41- Finland I'm not dead yet, so I count myself as cancer survivor :-).  SignatureMatti Narkia > I'm not dead yet, so I count myself as cancer survivor :-). > > -- > Matti Narkia My apologies, I must of missed your cancer diagnosis. Besty no offense, Cancer person with no evidence of disease, I guess that is what I am too. Cancer Survivor is a term - I didn't make up, It is better than cancer victim or cancer patient. Most people don't understand I had a diagnosis but I have no evidence of disease. I was told not to consider myself cured, I won't be able to claim that until I die. So what term would you call a person who isn't in active treatment but under oncological care? usenetgirl@gmail.com wrote in news:1159718032.651786.228110 @b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: >So what term would you call a person who isn't in active > treatment but under oncological care? Do we need a term? Why not simply, "I had breast cancer in 19XX & haven't had any problems since, but I'll always need check-ups." You could mention the treatment you had. "Survivor" doesn't tell anyone anything useful when it's a term we use for both people with active disease & no hope of cure & those who are most likely cured. And like Steph said, you don't truly know that you're cured until you live a normal life expecancy & die of something else. But after a time, most are /considered/ cured. Fig > Do we need a term? Why not simply, "I had breast cancer in 19XX & haven't > had any problems since, but I'll always need check-ups." You could > mention > the treatment you had. I have found out cancer is a gift that keeps giving, nobody wants to hear your daily struggles with the disease. Also I did not coin the word survivor. My onocologist said one becomes a survivor the day you are diagnosed and begin treatment. I like the word survivor verses cancer patient or cancer victim. > "Survivor" doesn't tell anyone anything useful when it's a term we use for > both people with active disease & no hope of cure & those who are most > likely cured. Person undergoing cancer treatments, cancer patient, etc I am not crazy about the word, but after have chemo I do feel I survived. >> Do we need a term? Why not simply, "I had breast cancer in 19XX & >> haven't had any problems since, but I'll always need check-ups." You [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > are diagnosed and begin treatment. I like the word survivor verses > cancer patient or cancer victim. Socks preferred patient, but his situation was different from yours. He felt silly as a survivor & it confused people & then embarrassed them. He never called himself a survivor to my knowledge, Most of our friends/family had not been around cancer much & didn't know what survivor meant, assumed it meant cured. I wish NED were widely used so people would know what it means. Also, most people seem to see chemo as more curative than it is. >> "Survivor" doesn't tell anyone anything useful when it's a term we >> use for both people with active disease & no hope of cure & those who >> are most likely cured. > > Person undergoing cancer treatments, cancer patient, etc I am not > crazy about the word, but after have chemo I do feel I survived. And you have. And I'm glad for you & hope it's all behind you. It can be a life-changing event & I have nothing but admiration for you who have emerged from the other side, resumed your lives. It's just the term 'survivor' that I find ambiguous. I'm not diminishing the experience, courage, pain, fear, inner strength - none of that - it's just the term. Fig > Also, most people seem to see chemo as more curative than it is. I'm kinda hoping it makes a good adjunct to surgery, but I'm not leaving out the possibility it's a plot by the World Toupee And Wig Cartel. ;) SignatureMore abuse of eminent domain! http://www.villagelandgrab.com/ >> Also, most people seem to see chemo as more curative than it is. > > I'm kinda hoping it makes a good adjunct to surgery, but I'm not leaving > out the possibility it's a plot by the World Toupee And Wig Cartel. ;) You have one wonderful sense of humor!! Betsy >> Also, most people seem to see chemo as more curative than it is. > > I'm kinda hoping it makes a good adjunct to surgery, but I'm not leaving > out the possibility it's a plot by the World Toupee And Wig Cartel. ;) Hee hee. I think J & Steph say in conjunction with surgery to round up any strays. So you're back to feeling sassy? Fig >>> Also, most people seem to see chemo as more curative than it is. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So you're back to feeling sassy? Never really stopped, just haven't had much to say lately. :) Q: How do you avoid falling hair? A: Get out of the way. SignatureMore abuse of eminent domain! http://www.villagelandgrab.com/ >> I'm not dead yet, so I count myself as cancer survivor :-). >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > until I die. So what term would you call a person who isn't in active > treatment but under oncological care? If the cancer goes away and never comes back, you're cured. > I'm not dead yet, so I count myself as cancer survivor :-). > > -- > Matti Narkia My apologies, I must of missed your cancer diagnosis. Besty no offense, Cancer person with no evidence of disease, I guess that is what I am too. Cancer Survivor is a term - I didn't make up, It is better than cancer victim or cancer patient. Most people don't understand I had a diagnosis but I have no evidence of disease. I was told not to consider myself cured, I won't be able to claim that until I die. So what term would you call a person who isn't in active treatment but under oncological care? >> I'm not dead yet, so I count myself as cancer survivor :-). >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > until I die. So what term would you call a person who isn't in active > treatment but under oncological care? Being followed at a cancer clinic after an initial diagnosis of breast cancer which has been treated and rendered NED is completely and utterly pointless, as the evidence has shown. Perhaps if less pointless follow up was done, there would be more cured people and less "cancer survivors"........ > Some groups have a monthly summary. I thought it would be interest to > start one. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Matti- not a caregiver or cancer survivor -41- Finland > Alayne - former caregiver - 31- UK As I've said before, the term "Cancer survivor" seems to me to be counter-productive. I much prefer "cured" By the way, before making definitive statements about people, a check of the facts might be in order. You have no idea whether J is a "caregiver", and Matti is more of a cancer survivor than anyone else on this NG........ > "alex" <alex@noemail.com> wrote in message > > Betsy - cancer survivor- 53 US > > As I've said before, the term "Cancer survivor" seems to me to be > counter-productive. I much prefer "cured" The way I see it, Betsy is an active cancer patient, currently NED. J >> "alex" <alex@noemail.com> wrote in message >> > Betsy - cancer survivor- 53 US [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The way I see it, Betsy is an active cancer patient, currently NED. > J And you would be correct there. My Onc Doc has never indicated I was cured. Please never assume anything. You know the rest. Betsy >>> "alex" <alex@noemail.com> wrote in message >>> > Betsy - cancer survivor- 53 US [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Please never assume anything. You know the rest. > Betsy But most people are cured................ As I hope you will be. My objection is to silly politically correct melodramatic circumlocutions like "survivor" Steph schreef: > But most people are cured................ > As I hope you will be. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I don't know if "cured" is correct. I know several breastcancerpatients that were cured but had mets years and years after they were "cured". I never said I was cured when I was pronounced "cured". I always said "I had cancer, but you never know what pops up". NED is a better term imo, but that's probably not what people want to hear. Anne > Steph schreef: >> But most people are cured................ [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Anne Breast cancer and melanoma are exceptional cancers, and can recur many years later (though the overall 5 year survival form BC is 85%.......) But for all the other common adult cancers, 90% of recurrences are in the first 2 years after treatment, and most of those are in the first year. If you get to 4 or five years with most cancers, you are almost certainly cured. >> Steph schreef: >>> But most people are cured................ [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > you get to 4 or five years with most cancers, you are almost certainly > cured. If melanoma falls in the "exceptional cancers" along with breast cancer, How and who calculates this ? Does my GP put the info into a data base ? What if I go to 3 different docs for one melanoma (GP, Onc and surgeon) ? If I've had three primaries (which I know is unusual)-all 1B and a SNB was OK! then where do I fall in the charts ? And in Ontario, Canada who is the overseer of this ? I consider myself NED because melanoma is always lurking. > If melanoma falls in the "exceptional cancers" along with breast cancer, > How and who calculates this ? Epidemiologists, based on the data > Does my GP put the info into a data base ? The Cancer Registry > What if I go to 3 different docs for one melanoma (GP, Onc and surgeon) ? It still gets recorded in the same registry > If I've had three primaries (which I know is unusual)-all 1B and a SNB > was OK! then where do I fall in the charts ? 90%+ 5 year survival > And in Ontario, Canada who is the overseer of this ? Cancer Care Ontario > I consider myself NED because melanoma is always lurking. I consider you probably cured >> If melanoma falls in the "exceptional cancers" along with breast cancer, >> How and who calculates this ? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I consider you probably cured Thanks Steph! These were questions that I did not get answers for (from my GP and surgeon) Thank You Steph for all the effort you put into this group! You make it a better place with your sincerity and facts. >>> If melanoma falls in the "exceptional cancers" along with breast cancer, >>> How and who calculates this ? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Thank You Steph for all the effort you put into this group! You make it a > better place with your sincerity and facts. Just a caveat............the whims of statistics.............. If someone has 3 stage 1B melanomas at the same time (which would be unusual), the 5 year NED survival for each is 90% The overall survival would be 90% x 90% x 90% = 73% They are independent variables >>>> If melanoma falls in the "exceptional cancers" along with breast cancer, >>>> How and who calculates this ? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > If someone has 3 stage 1B melanomas at the same time (which would be > unusual), the 5 year NED survival for each is 90% The 3 were diagnosed about 26 mos. apart The overall survival would be 90% x 90% x 90% = 73% > They are independent variables x, y, (R factor) I assume. And the luck of the draw! >But most people are cured................ >As I hope you will be. > >My objection is to silly politically correct melodramatic circumlocutions >like "survivor" I tend to agree. There was a time, when "survivor" was an appropriate term, but in many cancers the treatments have been advanced so much, that perhaps we should not hesitate to use word "cured" any longer. In my type of cancer, throat cancer (probably originated from tonsil), the radiation treatments have advanced so much that apparently even regionally advanced squamous cell carcinomas can perhaps fairly often be cured with chemoradiation or radiation alone. IMRT and even more advanced techniques may also have helped to improve cure rate. IMRT definitely was good for me, because they were able to save one saliva gland with the result that my mouth didn't get completely dry. Helps to keep my remaining teeth - few front teeth in the lower jaw - in good conditon. The rest of teeth were removed before radiation. SignatureMatti Narkia >>But most people are cured................ >>As I hope you will be. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to keep my remaining teeth - few front teeth in the lower jaw - in > good conditon. The rest of teeth were removed before radiation. IMRT is now or "standard" treatment for H&N cancer, for those very reasons. And our local control and survival rates with IMRT alone for stage 3 and 4 H&N cancer are as good or better than the trials in the literature for combined chemo-RT. >>>> "alex" <alex@noemail.com> wrote in message >>>> > Betsy - cancer survivor- 53 US [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > My objection is to silly politically correct melodramatic circumlocutions > like "survivor" I knew that, > My objection is to silly politically correct melodramatic > circumlocutions like "survivor" The survivor label has been overdone here for many years. Someone tried to pin that tag on me just for having an alocholic father. "Adult survivor" of something or other. Good grief! Life is a learning experience... My jaw dropped when Socks came home from a cancer fundraiser - an around- the-clock relay event at a gym. He was wearing a T-shirt proclaiming him a "Cancer Survivor." This was within a month or two of diagnosis with Stage IV NSCLC with 6-18 month prognosis. I guess different people feel different ways about such, but it reminded me of an attempt to recast handicapped/disabled as 'differently abled people' a few years back - a rather overwrought attempt to look on the positive side, whether it exists or not, imo. Or denial. Fig, a realist >> My objection is to silly politically correct melodramatic >> circumlocutions like "survivor" [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Fig, a realist My kind of.............as was Socks >> My objection is to silly politically correct melodramatic >> circumlocutions like "survivor" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of > something or other. Good grief! Life is a learning experience... Thank You. I want to know when a person is supposed to take responsibility for their own actions. Destroy another person's life and it's your parents' fault. We are a victim oriented society, and as long as a person lives on the victim mentality, they cannot live on their own. Woo Hoo, I'm an abuse, incest, spanking, drug, alcohol, tobacco, bubblegum, cancer, influenza, hangnail, earthquake, hurricane, tornado, blizzard, sunstroke, heatstroke, cold stroke, water stroke, McDonald's, Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Salad Bar survivor. Can you tell that I think it has gotten out of hand? Pam S. >>> My objection is to silly politically correct melodramatic >>> circumlocutions like "survivor" [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Pam S. Isn't it just a MIRACLE that we can even climb out of bed each day & do anything productive at all with all those strikes against us? LOL You've made me see it a different way now - being a survivor is part of the victim metality - yes? Maybe that's why I've always cringed at 'survivor' as I have trouble seeing myself or others as 'victims' Now Holocaust survivors - that's another story. The cancer survivor label is more complex. How can you grieve the impending death of a 'survivor'? How does being a 'survivor' help someone stricken with a fatal condition prepare emotionally for his own death? People with cancer often endure incredible pain & discomfort. I have great admiration for all they go through & then still finding joy in living. Like many here & one I was married to. To me, 'survivor' is an inappropriate tribute to that & could be detrimental. Why do we need a label anyway? Why not just, I love you, I'm here for you & can I take you out to dinner & a funny show? Don't get me started on "lost his battle with..." Fig > But most people are cured................ > As I hope you will be. > > My objection is to silly politically correct melodramatic circumlocutions > like "survivor" I agree only to the degree that I like NED over survivor. Still, aren't there folk that are NED that have not even been diagnosed yet? Something to think about. As to our moniker, consider this; my city is in the last few weeks of completing a walking path section in a major park. There is a huge sign proclaiming it will be called Cancer Survivor Park. That seems to work better than: (1) People Cured of Cancer Park (2) People With No Evidence of Disease Park (3) People That Probably Don't Have Cancer Anymore (But heh, s*!t happens) Park It's not exactly quite as silly a PC circumlocution (is that the same thing as circumbobulation?) as calling a midget a vertically challenged person now is it? (apologies if there are any here -- did anyone see Boston Legal last week?) Every time I pass the sign I think maybe I should write the Mayor's office and ask what perks I get? Of course I'm neither NED nor a survivor but I will be! I just want to know what I'll get over the average taxpayer. Since the Mayor's trying to tack 50 cents more to my property tax rate for more police officers I'll take my perks where I can get them. Come to think of it, my rate hike should be waived because I a 10 year car-jacking survivor. I'm definitely writing him a letter! Soon. Whoa! I got OT all of a sudden. It's late. Maybe I shouldn't try ng posting this time of night. And now we return you to your locally scheduled programming. ;-) Marsha >> But most people are cured................ >> As I hope you will be. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > proclaiming it will be called Cancer Survivor Park. That seems to work > better than: And what would be wrong with "cured of Cancer" Park? Honestly, I hate the reverence which is given to cancer. Patients who have myocardial infarctions are never cured- the dead heart muscle is with them for life, but most of them don't prance around with "heart attack survivor" mentality. More people die of diarrhoeal disease in the world than any other illness, but those who recover don't forever label themselves "survivors". Cancer is a horrible nasty disease when it kills people, but over 60% of people with cancer are cured. It's gone, it doesn't come back. Even more if you include skin cancers. The purpose of medical intervention when someone gets a serious illness is to get them back to a normal life, or if that isn't possible as close to a normal life as is possible. That's a cure, that's success. I'm tired of seeing people whose cancer will never come back, will never cause symptoms, and will never kill them, spending the rest of their lives defining themselves by some disease they had which has gone. > Of course I'm neither NED nor a survivor but I will be! According to common usage, you became a survivor the day you were diagnosed. That was our point. And I really hope you become cured! > Come to think of it, my rate hike should be waived because I a 10 year car jacking survivor. Wow! I think I would be first in line to pay the extra for more police officers. <grin> Fig > As I've said before, the term "Cancer survivor" seems to me to be > counter-productive. I much prefer "cured" How do you define "cured"? What criteria do you use? bj >> As I've said before, the term "Cancer survivor" seems to me to be >> counter-productive. I much prefer "cured" > > How do you define "cured"? What criteria do you use? > bj It never comes back, and you live happily ever after............. But if you like science, a when the surviving members of a population which has been treated for cancer achieve the same annual death rates as a population which has not been treated for cancer, and have no evidence of the cancer, they are cured of the cancer. >It never comes back, and you live happily ever after............. > >But if you like science, a when the surviving members of a population which >has been treated for cancer achieve the same annual death rates as a >population which has not been treated for cancer, and have no evidence of >the cancer, they are cured of the cancer. Using that criteria, one never knows one was "cured" until one dies of something other than the originally diagnosed cancer. My esophageal cancer friends are a lot more comfortable with the NED pronouncement than proclaiming ourselves cured. I can be NED today, but not know if I'm cured or not until I finally die of something else. Even six years out, I do not consider myself cured. "Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote: >It never comes back, and you live happily ever after............. > >But if you like science, a when the surviving members of a population which >has been treated for cancer achieve the same annual death rates as a >population which has not been treated for cancer, and have no evidence of >the cancer, they are cured of the cancer. Using that criteria, one never knows one was "cured" until one dies of something other than the originally diagnosed cancer. My esophageal cancer friends are a lot more comfortable with the NED pronouncement than proclaiming ourselves cured. I can be NED today, but not know if I'm cured or not until I finally die of something else. Even six years out, I do not consider myself cured. As I said, for most of the common cancers, 90% of recurrences occur in the first 2 years, and most of those in the first year. Do late occurrences happen? Sure, but they become vanishingly uncommon as time progressed. Anyone with an esophageal cancer who is NED at 6 years is cured. >As I said, for most of the common cancers, 90% of recurrences occur in the >first 2 years, and most of those in the first year. Do late occurrences >happen? Sure, but they become vanishingly uncommon as time progressed. >Anyone with an esophageal cancer who is NED at 6 years is cured. I wish it did hold for "anyone." Alas, we have more people than we care to have who recur more than 6 years out. Granted, not many, but enough that saying "anyone with an esophageal cancer who is NED at 6 years is cured" is probably a bit over-optimistic. There have been more than 5,000 EC patients sign into the ACOR EC listserv in the 6 years I've been there. The longest lived survivor remains a woman who was diagnosed with Stage IV EC more than 35 years ago. "Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote: >As I said, for most of the common cancers, 90% of recurrences occur in the >first 2 years, and most of those in the first year. Do late occurrences >happen? Sure, but they become vanishingly uncommon as time progressed. >Anyone with an esophageal cancer who is NED at 6 years is cured. >>I wish it did hold for "anyone." Alas, we have more people than we care >>to have who recur more than 6 years out. Granted, not many, but enough >>that saying "anyone with an esophageal cancer who is NED at 6 years is >>cured" is probably a bit over-optimistic. Two things to bear in mind: 1) It's an asymptotic curve, so there will always be an increasingly tiny number of late recurrences. But by 6 years, your chances of getting a recurrence are less than the risk of driving to the mall. 2) A significant proportion of "late recurrences" are actually new cancers. Having had one does not protect you from others >>There have been more than 5,000 EC patients sign into the ACOR EC >>listserv in the 6 years I've been there. The longest lived survivor >>remains a woman who was diagnosed with Stage IV EC more than 35 years >>ago. Maybe, just maybe, shes cured? >Two things to bear in mind: >1) It's an asymptotic curve, so there will always be an increasingly tiny >number of late recurrences. But by 6 years, your chances of getting a >recurrence are less than the risk of driving to the mall. >2) A significant proportion of "late recurrences" are actually new cancers. >Having had one does not protect you from others I think my biggest problem with using "cured" vs "NED" is that NED can be a completely factual medical pronouncement while cured is not. A doctor can tell you that, according to the studies and statistics, you are probably cured and "your chances of getting a recurrence are less than the risk of driving to the mall." And, for some cancers, this is most likely true. Based on the NCI data, 14,500 people in the United States will be diagnosed with esophageal cancer this year. In the US, with a population of 300 million, that works out to 4.6 cases per 100,000. (Which, I will grant, is not a useful number since the target population for EC is far smaller - EC is not a pediatric disease, for example.) As I mentioned, we've had 5,000 EC cases sign into the ACOR EC listserv in the 6 years I've been a member (the number may be a bit higher since the guy who used to keep count gave it up). Out of those 5000, there have been at least 10 who recurred after 5 years. There have been others who have been diagnosed with new cancers - a member of our Atlanta support group died of lung cancer after beating EC for 4 years. The point is that the chances of recurring are still far, far higher than the odds of contracting EC in the first place with the odds of 1 out of 500 compared to 4.6 out of 100,000. Now, 10 out of 5000 are pretty good odds of survival for those of us who make the 5 year mark, but it's not nearly as safe as driving to the mall. Perhaps we just need to move the target out to 10 years. I can't think of anyone who has recurred after 10 years, but... our statistical sample for 10 year survival is pretty small and any conclusions drawn from it would be shaky. Sorry, Doc, but I'm gonna stick with NED. Besides, why tempt karma by using "cured?" "Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote: >Sorry, Doc, but I'm gonna stick with NED. Besides, why tempt karma by >using "cured?" Whatever you're comfortable with Eric. It's largely semantics. My only concer is that some people are more likely to get on with their lives than if they are simply NED, which implies waiting for the other shoe to drop............ >>Sorry, Doc, but I'm gonna stick with NED. Besides, why tempt karma by >>using "cured?" > Whatever you're comfortable with Eric. It's largely semantics. > > My only concer is that some people are more likely to get on with their > lives than if they are simply NED, which implies waiting for the other > shoe to drop............ I'm on Eric's side. And I *am* getting on with my life, though I'm also keeping an eye out for that shoe. There is at least one person on my thyca list (not acor's) that had a recurrence after way more than 10 years. bj >"Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >lives than if they are simply NED, which implies waiting for the other shoe >to drop............ And that's where we differ, Steph. I see NED as far more than waiting for the other shoe to drop. It is, to me, a realistic appraisal of our medical condition today. There is No Evidence of Disease and that's about as good as it's going to get once you've had the doctor tell you it's cancer. Doesn't mean the next set of tests won't show something ugly, but today, by gum, the tests are clear and I'm cancer free. Semantics? Perhaps. But for the 1700 of us on the EC list, it's what we live for and celebrate every time one of us comes back from the doc with a report of NED. And, while it's extremely disappointing to go from NED to discovering a recurrence, it's a LOT less disappointing than going from a medical pronouncement of "cured" to a recurrence. "Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote: >>Sorry, Doc, but I'm gonna stick with NED. Besides, why tempt karma by >>using "cured?" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >lives than if they are simply NED, which implies waiting for the other shoe >to drop............ And that's where we differ, Steph. I see NED as far more than waiting for the other shoe to drop. It is, to me, a realistic appraisal of our medical condition today. There is No Evidence of Disease and that's about as good as it's going to get once you've had the doctor tell you it's cancer. Doesn't mean the next set of tests won't show something ugly, but today, by gum, the tests are clear and I'm cancer free. Semantics? Perhaps. But for the 1700 of us on the EC list, it's what we live for and celebrate every time one of us comes back from the doc with a report of NED. And, while it's extremely disappointing to go from NED to discovering a recurrence, it's a LOT less disappointing than going from a medical pronouncement of "cured" to a recurrence. ===================================================== Again, I can't agree, Eric. My policy is to discharge patients from follow up if they have been treated for a cancer for which there is no evidence that follow up is in any way beneficial - and that's most of the common cancers. Patients continuing on pointless follow-up is a sure way to a: keep reminding them that they had cancer, and b: persuade them to think in terms of NED rather than cure. >===================================================== >Again, I can't agree, Eric. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >pointless follow-up is a sure way to a: keep reminding them that they had >cancer, and b: persuade them to think in terms of NED rather than cure. Perhaps the stumbling point is "most of the common cancers." Do you consider esophageal cancer a common cancer? We may be talking passed each other in terms of specific cancers rather than actually disagreeing. I'm sure the chances of recurring after 5 years can vary widely between different cancers with some being low enough to warrant the comparison with driving to the mall. If you put EC into this category, I'd sure like to see some numbers on survival rates after the 5 year mark. They would be most appreciated by those reading the ACOR EC list. "Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote: >===================================================== >Again, I can't agree, Eric. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >pointless follow-up is a sure way to a: keep reminding them that they had >cancer, and b: persuade them to think in terms of NED rather than cure. Perhaps the stumbling point is "most of the common cancers." Do you consider esophageal cancer a common cancer? We may be talking passed each other in terms of specific cancers rather than actually disagreeing. I'm sure the chances of recurring after 5 years can vary widely between different cancers with some being low enough to warrant the comparison with driving to the mall. If you put EC into this category, I'd sure like to see some numbers on survival rates after the 5 year mark. They would be most appreciated by those reading the ACOR EC list. ========================================================= I'll try and find you some, but disease specific survival for ec after 5 years is approximately equal to the non-ec population |
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.