here is a question. The one mom who I saw in the hosp. the lst time after I found out how bad the cancer was etc. and we hugged and cried, just had a lumpectomy and now I see she is having radiation versus chemo. What would that mean ?
Well, I would think that that is a good thing. If she isn't having chemo, I would guess it is because her cancer had not spread to the lymph nodes, which would be great news. The radiation is used to kill any remaining cells that might still be local near her lumpetctomy. After having had both, I will say that radiation was a breeze compared to chemo.....still an awful thing to go through, but not nearly as devastating.
In addition to Cheryl's response, I'll add that usually it means that the cancer is either a) non-invasive, or b) small and invasive, hormone receptor positive, and not yet spread to the lymph nodes (that they're aware of). In the past, if the cancer was invasive, bam, you got chemo. Now, even if it's invasive, they're trying to determine which cancers can safely be treated with surgery and radiation alone, since chemotherapy is not without risk, and they alway have to do a benefit/risk analysis with every case. But it's kind of an educated guessing game. (Here in Boston at MGH they've started taking this concept one step further and actually study the genes of the cancer to see not only what it's made up of, but what chemo it will respond to (or not), etc. It's expensive and if insurance won't cover it, people have to pay out of pocket.)
Chemo is designed to kill any invasive cells that left the original site and traveled distally to other organs where they can grow later on, a process called metastasis. Mets is what people with cancer die from. So I think it would be a tough decision, if you do have invasive cancer, to decide to forego the chemo based on thinking your cancer probably hasn't metastasized and you'll be fine without it. I think my inclination would be to take it as insurance anyway (which is what the treatment would have been just 4 or 5 years ago), but I can't say with absolute certainty as I've not been in that situation and there certainly are risks, for instance to the heart, when you do get chemo. (And being a nurse probably makes you more cautious as you see things that most people don't normall see on a routine basis.)
I would not have been a candidate for not having chemo anyway as my cancer was hormone receptor negative (a different animal than most BCs) and I was node positive, which bought me four extra doses of chemo in addition to the standard four. I also had radiation (and can feel its effects on me today).
Good news for people with non-invasive cancer is that there is almost a 100% cure rate with surgery and radiation alone. For invasive cancers, the waters get a little murkier, though survival rates certainly have improved over the past decade, fortunately for us.
I don't think I mentioned that one of my closest care givers was recently diagnosed with BC herself. Ironic, as she was the person from my medical team who sent me cards and called me when I was in treatment. Funny how life is. (I wonder if this was somehow a Godwink?)
So, about that part I bolded - if you don't mind - can you explain what effects you mean? I've been blaming some strange sensations on the surgery, but now I'm wondering if maybe I should be blaming the radiation.
I was crying before I was so stressed out worrying about it. I wasnt but I asked dh if he kept pushing me to call because of his trip etc. I know he also wants to plan the disney va. in dec. too etc. After stressing, I decided to pray. Much better!!
I'm so glad that awful cancer is out of her body.
