First diagnosis-Received Lumpectomy or Masectomy

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   < ="Content-" content="text/; charset=utf-8">< name="ProgId" content="Word.">< name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10">< name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><>

Hi Ronda, 

My dear, I feel your passion on this. However, you MUST be more careful in
interpreting the data!!!! 

What we have here is:

Apples=Numbers quoted to you by your onc. regarding
chemo/rads/mast.

Oranges=Recent study re: young er- single
vs. double mast.

Pineapples=BRCA testing

Bananas=Anything regarding lumpectomy vs. mastectomy for different groups

Statistics and studies can be powerful tools, and they also
have the potential to be powerfully misleading if we are not careful with them.
It seems there are many different "facts" being thrown around based
on different studies and even personal experience pieced together, and I am
very uncomfortable with some of the conclusions being drawn and presented as
fact. 

I was thinking about chemo last night and when I was told the statistics
(not the right statistics because turns out I'm a BRCA positve, who would
have never known had it not been for this site) the doc said 56% of women going
through rads or masts. will be cancer free, they can add another 17% to that if
they do chemo. These may have been stats for your
particular stage/grade/age, etc. I don not believe these are overall bc stats?
At least, I have heard completely different rates.   So I said
"Basically 56% didn't need chemo", the answer was
"yes".  Again, you don't really know
what you're quoting. It may be, for example, that 56% of all bc is receptor
positive and found at stage i and therefore a mast. would do the trick;
it could be that 56% of patients are under XX age and have yy type of bc; it
could be as you say, an average of all bc. We dont' really know. Unless we can analyze where these
data came from, we must use extreme caution in interpreting and repeating them.  

 So when 100 women receive chemo, it's to save 17 women, 56% of
them will be canceer free.....EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO HAVE GENETIC CANCER PLEASE QUOTE STUDIES RELATING TO THIS; IT IS RELEVANT.,
THEY FALL INTO A DIFFERENT GROUP AND MANY DOCTORS ARE NOT CHECKING TO SEE IF
THEIR PATIENTS FALL INTO THAT CATAGORY ....BUT NOW IF IT"S BEEN DETERMINED
THAT ALL YOUNG EARLY STAGE ER NEGs BENEFIT..... THINGS JUST GOT A WHOLE LOT
EASIER. You don't know how many of the doctors checked
into their patients' categories or not. It may be a significant factor or not.
I did not see where this study says anything about BRCA, so, yes, they are
saying it's as easy as age + negative receptor=better to do double than single.
No more, no less, nothing about BRCA status.   

     I think that is where this study
comes in.  If there is another genetic component at work here, then
the YOUNG ER negs that are  BRCA unknown or BRCA neg. fall
into this group ALONG WITH BRCA positves, it may be a better filter
to get to the higher risk patients and then add the BRCA
test to those with family history or  insurance that will cover it. 

    If currently the standard or
treatment with chemo is to treat 100% to save 17% woman  then the question is how many women young ER neg.
early stage women can be saved with the double mast.? Apples and oranges.  This will include a much of
the untested BRCA unknowns also because most get it when they are young
too. What do you mean by this? 

dr