CSN Login
Members Online: 14

For kidney cancer, this cure's worse than the disease

John23
Posts: 1832
Joined: Jan 2007

For kidney cancer, this cure's worse than the disease

By Marilynn Marchione, Associated Press -
In a stunning example of when treatment might be worse than the disease, a large review of Medicare records finds that older people with small kidney tumors were much less likely to die over the next five years if doctors monitored them instead of operating right away.

Read the whole story here:
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/12/16940992-for-kidney-cancer-this-cures-worse-than-the-disease?lite

 

PatchAdams
Posts: 272
Joined: Nov 2011

John,  a neighbor lady had kidney cancer found by 'accident' during a CT after a fall.  She's mid 50's now.  Her doctor froze and thawed, froze and thawed, froze and thawed the tumor until it could easily be clipped off.  She had no follow up chemo and is cancer free for about 7 years now.  

 

annalexandria's picture
annalexandria
Posts: 2280
Joined: Oct 2011

even a slow-growing cancer is a problem for someone in his/her 50s, but if you're in your 80s, the risks of treatment may outweigh the threat posed by the cancer (see:prostate cancer in old guys).  I'm lazy, John, too lazy to click!  Do you know what age group they were looking at in this study?

RobinKaye
Posts: 93
Joined: Nov 2011

After five years, 24 percent of those who had surgery had died, compared to only 13 percent of those who chose monitoring. Just 3 percent of people in each group died of kidney cancer.

The study only involved people 66 and older, but half of all kidney cancers occur in this age group. Younger people with longer life expectancies should still be offered surgery, doctors stressed.

John23
Posts: 1832
Joined: Jan 2007

 

Robin summed it up nicely: 66 and older. And they do stress that younger individuals should have surgery, etc!

 

It does make me wonder just how many of all age groups and types of cancer would benefit more with not doing much aside from surgery, instead of the aggressive toxic route (with an effort to kill cancer cells that can’t be seen or identified).

 

In recent years, oncologists have been using lower dosages and find that there is better results when you don’t kill one’s immune system… ha…. Go figger!

 

Oh well.

 

Be good; be well!

 

John

annalexandria's picture
annalexandria
Posts: 2280
Joined: Oct 2011

are taking the "wait and see" approach when there is no visible cancer.  I think Craig may have mentioned this (are you out there, Craig?  Is this your present approach?).  Mine certainly didn't, and I kind of wished he had, given that no chemo worked for me, and I was left with many side effects.  But hind-sight is always 20-20, of course.  At least, I'm in wait and see mode now, and for the rest of the journey!

Sundanceh's picture
Sundanceh
Posts: 4306
Joined: Jun 2009

Yes, that's my current approach...watching and waiting with no visibile cancer...almost 21 mos clear....longest stretch of clear time ever...8.8 years now.

I get up every morning...work hard...and go to bed....that's my approach. Surprisingly, it's the one that has netted me the most success.

It's not a popular story among our viewers...because it scares some of us...the prevailing theory is that one must do Something...Anything....

My hopes are that I can show that this path can be a viable option for some...my onc is in complete agreement.

In 3-weeks, we'll know if this stragety still has any merit.

-Craig

Subscribe with RSS
About Cancer Society

The content on this site is for informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Do not use this information to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease without consulting with a qualified healthcare provider. Please consult your healthcare provider with any questions or concerns you may have regarding your condition. Use of this online service is subject to the disclaimer and the terms and conditions.

Copyright 2000-2014 © Cancer Survivors Network