Pathology Report - Deciding on Chemo or No Chemo

135

Comments

  • So Worried
    So Worried Member Posts: 111 Member

    Through a different lens...

    My cancer was also stage 11a with no node involvement, clear margins, and had gone through the wall. After meeting with the tumor board, I chose no chemo. It has been three years and I am still NED. My CEA has steadily risen from 1.5 to 3.6 . I just had an endometrial biopsy and am awaiting results. I have been told that if I have endometrial cancer it is a second primary, not mets. As others have said, there is no ''one size fits all' answer. I was 60 yrs old when diagnosed and colon cancer runs in my family though I do not have Lynch syndrome. I am watched closely and have no regrets. That said, I would probably have no regrets if I had chemo either. I made the decision that I felt was best for me and my family at the time. That is all any if us can do after getting all the info we can. We live with the ambiguity of cancer no matter what.
    Best wishes...and prayers for health.

    Cathleen Mary

    Cathleen Mary....
    I wish you a lot of luck! I'm not sure which way my hubby is going to go with his decision, but the way he is talking, I'm thinking he might choose, no chemo. I'm scared and nervous either way! I just hate this new life :(

    Again, thank you to everyone. Every single post makes sense and they are all pretty different. LOL

    I guess we are just going to have to realize...that:
    If he does chemo - it could come back
    IF he does no chemo - it could come back

    The statistics / percentages that Phil wrote on his post about his friend are interesting. Hmmm
    Thank you Phil, too. And everyone else...I just can't remember everyone's name right now.
    I wish everyone success, good health, and tons of prayers for all of you and your loved ones.
  • thxmiker
    thxmiker Member Posts: 1,278 Member
    Welcome! At the same time,
    Welcome! At the same time, I am sorry that you had to join us and am sending good thoughts and prayers for you.

    I started with a diagnosis of Adenocarcinoma (Goblet Cell) in the Appendix and Cecum. (Sept 2007) I had the surgery and they missed a little on the margin and went back for the transverse colon, and 28 lymph nodes. All seemed clear of cancer. Then in June 2010 I had terrible abdominal pains and went in for the next surgery. Diagnosed with Signet Ring Cell, removal of the ostimosis (Surgical site) and 30" of the small intestine 3 additional tumors. Did my 6 months of FolFox. August 2012 Diagnosed Signet Ring Cell again. My CEA was 1125.

    My Point: I did everything right. I had perfect blood chemistry. I changed my blood chemistry to alkaline. I subjected myself to chemo. I lost weigh and got my body in even better physical shape. I still had a recurrence. Unless Chemo is going to be a help, I would think hard about doing it again. Whom knows I am not there yet, to make that decision. Chemo damaged my nerves, my eye sight, hearing loss, and made me weak for 18 months. Consider Diet, and other therapies, before subjecting to the expense and trauma of Chemo.

    I would also get a second opinion on the slides of what type of cancer the Adenocarcenoid is! It is easy to misdiagnose. (Mine was) I did see pictures of both cell types on a 17 screen, and they are exceptionally close. That us why I recommend a second opinion. Read the AntiCancer Diet, it is informative on what new treatments are coming and has a good attitude about the battle of cancer.

    Best Always, mike
  • So Worried
    So Worried Member Posts: 111 Member
    thxmiker said:

    Welcome! At the same time,
    Welcome! At the same time, I am sorry that you had to join us and am sending good thoughts and prayers for you.

    I started with a diagnosis of Adenocarcinoma (Goblet Cell) in the Appendix and Cecum. (Sept 2007) I had the surgery and they missed a little on the margin and went back for the transverse colon, and 28 lymph nodes. All seemed clear of cancer. Then in June 2010 I had terrible abdominal pains and went in for the next surgery. Diagnosed with Signet Ring Cell, removal of the ostimosis (Surgical site) and 30" of the small intestine 3 additional tumors. Did my 6 months of FolFox. August 2012 Diagnosed Signet Ring Cell again. My CEA was 1125.

    My Point: I did everything right. I had perfect blood chemistry. I changed my blood chemistry to alkaline. I subjected myself to chemo. I lost weigh and got my body in even better physical shape. I still had a recurrence. Unless Chemo is going to be a help, I would think hard about doing it again. Whom knows I am not there yet, to make that decision. Chemo damaged my nerves, my eye sight, hearing loss, and made me weak for 18 months. Consider Diet, and other therapies, before subjecting to the expense and trauma of Chemo.

    I would also get a second opinion on the slides of what type of cancer the Adenocarcenoid is! It is easy to misdiagnose. (Mine was) I did see pictures of both cell types on a 17 screen, and they are exceptionally close. That us why I recommend a second opinion. Read the AntiCancer Diet, it is informative on what new treatments are coming and has a good attitude about the battle of cancer.

    Best Always, mike

    question...Mike?
    I'm just wondering, what do you mean by what type of cancer it is?
    Thank you.
  • John23
    John23 Member Posts: 2,122 Member

    question...Mike?
    I'm just wondering, what do you mean by what type of cancer it is?
    Thank you.

    So Worried -

    Mike's story is fairly common, and describes what having cancer
    is really like.

    There are absolutely no guarantees that any modality will work,
    so picking one that does the least amount of damage seems to
    make good sense.

    Starting with any alternative leaves you in a better position, since
    very few will damage the immune system or weaken health. That
    leaves an individual in better shape if the "alternative" fails to work,
    and healthy enough to start harsh chemical treatments, if there's
    no other option.

    Starting with harsh, damaging treatments first, leaves one handicapped
    with poorer health and a weakened immune system. Expecting an
    alternative to do great things is made much more difficult. Too much
    damage, and one can be left with a very poor functioning immune system,
    and nothing else but more harsh chemicals to look forward to.

    Here's a really simple explanation of cancer cells:

    Cancer cells begin life as a normal cell, but one that has been badly
    damaged. Too damaged to be able to take orders from the body,
    the cell begins to die. The immune system normally removes cells
    like that, but for some reason, in some of us, it overlooks that damaged
    cell. The cell begins to use the fermentation process to remain alive.
    It's like mold growing on a damp surface... It's just the natural transformation
    from one form of life to another.

    The cancer cell takes on some of the the characteristics of the host cell,
    and that is what the "type" is referred to. Some grow in the shape of a
    "goblet", some in the shape of a "signet ring". Shapes vary, as well the
    aggressiveness of the cell's ability to grow.

    But any and all the cancer cells are the same; they all stay alive via the
    fermentation process. They use glucose faster than most normal cells
    in the area they came from, and "steal" glucose from the body, starving
    good cells that also need glucose to survive.

    The trouble with using chemicals to try to kill cancer cells, is that there
    is no way presently, to target just the cancer cells. Chemical therapy
    and radiation damage as many (or more) good cells, as either does to the
    cancer cells. It's unfortunate, but true.

    If your husband does not desire to begin with chemical therapy, he should
    at least explore the use of some of the "alternatives" that others have had
    some success with.

    You can click on my name, go to my profile page, and read the "blog"
    section, if you'd like.

    You might want to do a search here for "2bhealed" and "scouty", and
    read about their success with "juicing".

    There are indeed other options to use to fight cancer. Harsh chemicals
    and radioactive nuclear beams aren't the only way to kill something that
    stays alive using such simple means.

    If the cancer is about to kill you, or invade an area that will surely cost
    you your life, then to use whatever works fastest makes perfect sense!

    Your husband will do fine, but he has to explore all the options, not just
    sit and watch time go by. The cancer is there because something went
    wrong, and he should do something to try to correct the condition that exists.

    Just killing a few cancer cells with chemicals and radiation, doesn't always do
    the trick........ I think looking at all the sadness we've had here this past year
    alone, will indicate the real failure of what "the cancer industry" has to offer.

    You husband has other options, along with conventional medicine, and he
    has the time now to explore it all.

    Oh..... and please do locate another colorectal surgeon, and get another
    opinion. The opinion should be from a surgeon not of the same group
    or organization as the present one. Oncologists sell chemical treatments,
    surgeons are usually more objective.

    Best hopes for a great, long life for you both!

    John
  • PhillieG
    PhillieG Member Posts: 4,866 Member
    John23 said:

    So Worried -

    Mike's story is fairly common, and describes what having cancer
    is really like.

    There are absolutely no guarantees that any modality will work,
    so picking one that does the least amount of damage seems to
    make good sense.

    Starting with any alternative leaves you in a better position, since
    very few will damage the immune system or weaken health. That
    leaves an individual in better shape if the "alternative" fails to work,
    and healthy enough to start harsh chemical treatments, if there's
    no other option.

    Starting with harsh, damaging treatments first, leaves one handicapped
    with poorer health and a weakened immune system. Expecting an
    alternative to do great things is made much more difficult. Too much
    damage, and one can be left with a very poor functioning immune system,
    and nothing else but more harsh chemicals to look forward to.

    Here's a really simple explanation of cancer cells:

    Cancer cells begin life as a normal cell, but one that has been badly
    damaged. Too damaged to be able to take orders from the body,
    the cell begins to die. The immune system normally removes cells
    like that, but for some reason, in some of us, it overlooks that damaged
    cell. The cell begins to use the fermentation process to remain alive.
    It's like mold growing on a damp surface... It's just the natural transformation
    from one form of life to another.

    The cancer cell takes on some of the the characteristics of the host cell,
    and that is what the "type" is referred to. Some grow in the shape of a
    "goblet", some in the shape of a "signet ring". Shapes vary, as well the
    aggressiveness of the cell's ability to grow.

    But any and all the cancer cells are the same; they all stay alive via the
    fermentation process. They use glucose faster than most normal cells
    in the area they came from, and "steal" glucose from the body, starving
    good cells that also need glucose to survive.

    The trouble with using chemicals to try to kill cancer cells, is that there
    is no way presently, to target just the cancer cells. Chemical therapy
    and radiation damage as many (or more) good cells, as either does to the
    cancer cells. It's unfortunate, but true.

    If your husband does not desire to begin with chemical therapy, he should
    at least explore the use of some of the "alternatives" that others have had
    some success with.

    You can click on my name, go to my profile page, and read the "blog"
    section, if you'd like.

    You might want to do a search here for "2bhealed" and "scouty", and
    read about their success with "juicing".

    There are indeed other options to use to fight cancer. Harsh chemicals
    and radioactive nuclear beams aren't the only way to kill something that
    stays alive using such simple means.

    If the cancer is about to kill you, or invade an area that will surely cost
    you your life, then to use whatever works fastest makes perfect sense!

    Your husband will do fine, but he has to explore all the options, not just
    sit and watch time go by. The cancer is there because something went
    wrong, and he should do something to try to correct the condition that exists.

    Just killing a few cancer cells with chemicals and radiation, doesn't always do
    the trick........ I think looking at all the sadness we've had here this past year
    alone, will indicate the real failure of what "the cancer industry" has to offer.

    You husband has other options, along with conventional medicine, and he
    has the time now to explore it all.

    Oh..... and please do locate another colorectal surgeon, and get another
    opinion. The opinion should be from a surgeon not of the same group
    or organization as the present one. Oncologists sell chemical treatments,
    surgeons are usually more objective.

    Best hopes for a great, long life for you both!

    John

    Cancer
    Mike's story is fairly common. Often, doctors misdiagnose. It really shows the importance of choosing GOOD doctors. No matter how one chooses to deal with their cancer, if you don't know what you're fighting it can be hard to pick the tools to use. How many here has been misdiagnosed or had errors made that caused other problems? You rarely get to do-over the first approach, get the experts even if the consultations are paid by yourself. Mine were out of my own pocket but cost less than $750 over 6 months. Other doctors can follow the protocol if that's the route you choose. But cancer will do what it does if given the chance.

    "The trouble with using chemicals to try to kill cancer cells, is that there
    is no way presently, to target just the cancer cells. Chemical therapy
    and radiation damage as many (or more) good cells, as either does to the
    cancer cells. It's unfortunate, but true."

    I can't figure out where your statements come from many times John, cancer cells CAN be targeted. Those are the types of advances being made contrary to what you believe. Fortunately, your statement is false.

    "I think looking at all the sadness we've had here this past year
    alone, will indicate the real failure of what "the cancer industry" has to offer."

    I wonder how many people also lose their battle using TCM and other methods? There's no data so it's easy to blame chemo. I personally find your comments totally uncalled for. It certainly sounds like you're blaming them for their choices and suggesting TCM would have saved them. There's nothing to back that statement up at all.

    True, there's no treatment that works for everyone all the time. Get the best doctors you can find (they are out there, I can't have the only one) and use the best treatment you can. Often, time is crucial. One may choose to try TCM or other non-chemo options. If they fail, they fail. Just like if one chooses chemo. It certainly doesn't alway work but it can work.

    "If your husband does not desire to begin with chemical therapy, he should at least explore the use of some of the "alternatives" that others have had some success with." I totally agree with that one John...

    Best to all with whatever approach they choose...
    -phil
    PS: posting opinions is very different than posting facts.
    You may feel John that I'm attacking you but I'm not.
    I'm just commenting on your comments when they are
    misleading or false. Many new people come here and
    we should try to keep ir "real"...
  • steved
    steved Member Posts: 834 Member
    PhillieG said:

    Cancer
    Mike's story is fairly common. Often, doctors misdiagnose. It really shows the importance of choosing GOOD doctors. No matter how one chooses to deal with their cancer, if you don't know what you're fighting it can be hard to pick the tools to use. How many here has been misdiagnosed or had errors made that caused other problems? You rarely get to do-over the first approach, get the experts even if the consultations are paid by yourself. Mine were out of my own pocket but cost less than $750 over 6 months. Other doctors can follow the protocol if that's the route you choose. But cancer will do what it does if given the chance.

    "The trouble with using chemicals to try to kill cancer cells, is that there
    is no way presently, to target just the cancer cells. Chemical therapy
    and radiation damage as many (or more) good cells, as either does to the
    cancer cells. It's unfortunate, but true."

    I can't figure out where your statements come from many times John, cancer cells CAN be targeted. Those are the types of advances being made contrary to what you believe. Fortunately, your statement is false.

    "I think looking at all the sadness we've had here this past year
    alone, will indicate the real failure of what "the cancer industry" has to offer."

    I wonder how many people also lose their battle using TCM and other methods? There's no data so it's easy to blame chemo. I personally find your comments totally uncalled for. It certainly sounds like you're blaming them for their choices and suggesting TCM would have saved them. There's nothing to back that statement up at all.

    True, there's no treatment that works for everyone all the time. Get the best doctors you can find (they are out there, I can't have the only one) and use the best treatment you can. Often, time is crucial. One may choose to try TCM or other non-chemo options. If they fail, they fail. Just like if one chooses chemo. It certainly doesn't alway work but it can work.

    "If your husband does not desire to begin with chemical therapy, he should at least explore the use of some of the "alternatives" that others have had some success with." I totally agree with that one John...

    Best to all with whatever approach they choose...
    -phil
    PS: posting opinions is very different than posting facts.
    You may feel John that I'm attacking you but I'm not.
    I'm just commenting on your comments when they are
    misleading or false. Many new people come here and
    we should try to keep ir "real"...

    Nicely put
    Thank you for a clear post Phil- I too appreciate John's angle and ideas but struggle with the language he uses to put them forward. OFten there is too many emotional adjectives and ideas added (eg cells 'fermenting' and 'stealing glucose' as well as harsh treatments 'weakening' us) which detract from the fact that he actually has some valid ideas and knowledge.

    I too would encourage the focus to be on facts rather than opinion or at least the two be clearly delineated within posts (opinion has its place but should come with health warnings that it is simply an opinion).

    Again, Ihope you don't see this as attacking, John, but simply as encouragement to keep posting in a way that is thoughtful about the impact strong ideas stated in emotional language can have on vulnerable people using this site.

    steve

    (PS like the new Ferris Beuler-like picture Phil!
  • PhillieG
    PhillieG Member Posts: 4,866 Member
    steved said:

    Nicely put
    Thank you for a clear post Phil- I too appreciate John's angle and ideas but struggle with the language he uses to put them forward. OFten there is too many emotional adjectives and ideas added (eg cells 'fermenting' and 'stealing glucose' as well as harsh treatments 'weakening' us) which detract from the fact that he actually has some valid ideas and knowledge.

    I too would encourage the focus to be on facts rather than opinion or at least the two be clearly delineated within posts (opinion has its place but should come with health warnings that it is simply an opinion).

    Again, Ihope you don't see this as attacking, John, but simply as encouragement to keep posting in a way that is thoughtful about the impact strong ideas stated in emotional language can have on vulnerable people using this site.

    steve

    (PS like the new Ferris Beuler-like picture Phil!

    Thanks Steve (re: photo)
    It's my youngest son, The Griffinator! (Griffin 12 is headed into the 7th grade. We had just dropped Dylan, our oldest @18 off at college...)

    Don't forget about all of us being "Victims"...
    If being a victim helps some people then by all means, be victimized.
    I'll pass on that view of myself.
    -phil

    PS: Loved your early morning post yesterday John.
    I blinked and it was gone. I also found it hard to believe.
  • John23
    John23 Member Posts: 2,122 Member
    PhillieG said:

    Thanks Steve (re: photo)
    It's my youngest son, The Griffinator! (Griffin 12 is headed into the 7th grade. We had just dropped Dylan, our oldest @18 off at college...)

    Don't forget about all of us being "Victims"...
    If being a victim helps some people then by all means, be victimized.
    I'll pass on that view of myself.
    -phil

    PS: Loved your early morning post yesterday John.
    I blinked and it was gone. I also found it hard to believe.

    Phil -

    I moved my post to my blog section. After seeing the usual debacle
    generated whenever an alternative is mentioned, I felt the "blog"
    was a better place for my rant.

    Phil.... If you can provide a valid source of information that provides
    information of any present chemical or radiation treatment that successfully
    targets a single cancer cell specifically, while not harming any good cells,
    please provide it here?

    There are absolutely no claims of "single cell" treatments from any
    source I know of, that tells of any successful use of anything like
    what you claim is presently being done.

    Thanks Phil.

    Stay well, you're proof that cancer can be controlled like any
    chronic illness.

    (I wish my brother-in-law didn't die last week of stage one pancreatic
    cancer; perhaps my objectivity regarding "western medicine" would be
    better, had he lived).


    Best wishes,

    John
  • PhillieG
    PhillieG Member Posts: 4,866 Member
    John23 said:

    Phil -

    I moved my post to my blog section. After seeing the usual debacle
    generated whenever an alternative is mentioned, I felt the "blog"
    was a better place for my rant.

    Phil.... If you can provide a valid source of information that provides
    information of any present chemical or radiation treatment that successfully
    targets a single cancer cell specifically, while not harming any good cells,
    please provide it here?

    There are absolutely no claims of "single cell" treatments from any
    source I know of, that tells of any successful use of anything like
    what you claim is presently being done.

    Thanks Phil.

    Stay well, you're proof that cancer can be controlled like any
    chronic illness.

    (I wish my brother-in-law didn't die last week of stage one pancreatic
    cancer; perhaps my objectivity regarding "western medicine" would be
    better, had he lived).


    Best wishes,

    John

    Alternatives are Always Welcome
    It's the constant bashing other methods you don't agree with that are frowned upon...
    Sorry about your brother-in-law. Pancreatic cancer is a tough one.
    -p

    Erbitux:
    "When growth factors bind to their receptors on the surface of the cell, the receptors give a signal that causes cells to divide. Some cancers are caused by mutated receptors that give a signal to divide even without growth factor. That causes the cells to divide uncontrollably. Cetuximab binds to such receptors and turns off that signal."

    In development:
    ‘Nanobubbles’ plus chemotherapy equals single-cell cancer targeting
    Rice teams with MD Anderson, Baylor College of Medicine to explore drug and gene delivery:
    HOUSTON — (April 9, 2012) — Using light-harvesting nanoparticles to convert laser energy into “plasmonic nanobubbles,” researchers at Rice University, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) are developing new methods to inject drugs and genetic payloads directly into cancer cells. In tests on drug-resistant cancer cells, the researchers found that delivering chemotherapy drugs with nanobubbles was up to 30 times more deadly to cancer cells than traditional drug treatment and required less than one-tenth the clinical dose.


    In response to your upcoming comments, I doubt there will ever be a "cure" that will work for everyone. Great strides are being made to combat cancer with a laser compared to a double barrel shotgun like they used to do. I know you well enough to know this isn't good enough for you. That's fine John, you are you and will always see the glass of water as being polluted.
    Be well...
  • RobinKaye
    RobinKaye Member Posts: 93
    PhillieG said:

    Cancer
    Mike's story is fairly common. Often, doctors misdiagnose. It really shows the importance of choosing GOOD doctors. No matter how one chooses to deal with their cancer, if you don't know what you're fighting it can be hard to pick the tools to use. How many here has been misdiagnosed or had errors made that caused other problems? You rarely get to do-over the first approach, get the experts even if the consultations are paid by yourself. Mine were out of my own pocket but cost less than $750 over 6 months. Other doctors can follow the protocol if that's the route you choose. But cancer will do what it does if given the chance.

    "The trouble with using chemicals to try to kill cancer cells, is that there
    is no way presently, to target just the cancer cells. Chemical therapy
    and radiation damage as many (or more) good cells, as either does to the
    cancer cells. It's unfortunate, but true."

    I can't figure out where your statements come from many times John, cancer cells CAN be targeted. Those are the types of advances being made contrary to what you believe. Fortunately, your statement is false.

    "I think looking at all the sadness we've had here this past year
    alone, will indicate the real failure of what "the cancer industry" has to offer."

    I wonder how many people also lose their battle using TCM and other methods? There's no data so it's easy to blame chemo. I personally find your comments totally uncalled for. It certainly sounds like you're blaming them for their choices and suggesting TCM would have saved them. There's nothing to back that statement up at all.

    True, there's no treatment that works for everyone all the time. Get the best doctors you can find (they are out there, I can't have the only one) and use the best treatment you can. Often, time is crucial. One may choose to try TCM or other non-chemo options. If they fail, they fail. Just like if one chooses chemo. It certainly doesn't alway work but it can work.

    "If your husband does not desire to begin with chemical therapy, he should at least explore the use of some of the "alternatives" that others have had some success with." I totally agree with that one John...

    Best to all with whatever approach they choose...
    -phil
    PS: posting opinions is very different than posting facts.
    You may feel John that I'm attacking you but I'm not.
    I'm just commenting on your comments when they are
    misleading or false. Many new people come here and
    we should try to keep ir "real"...

    Targeting Cancer Cells
    Phil,

    On our first visit with the onc to discuss treatment: chemorad followed by FOLFOX after surgery, standard protocol I asked the doctor how does the chemo hit the cancer without destroying the
    good stuff. His answer, "it doesn't". He said that chemo is going to damage everything good and bad, there was no way to just go after the bad cells. Any systemic chemo is going to damage
    everything which is why there are so many side affects. I would imagine that HAI pumps and the like would only affect the targeted area and maybe there are drugs being worked on or are used for other cancers but for crc where is the chemo that only attacks the cancer?

    Many studies are being done to determine if a Stage 2 patient will derive enough benefit from chemo to subject themselves to the damage it will cause. I really do like that you keep it real but I've read plenty to back up John's statement that chemo damages the good stuff just as much as the bad. Most people will bounce back from chemo but some have permanent damage and I'm not sure anyone is ever the same again. Chemo is a trade-off, you will most likely get some benefit, from a little to a lot but it is not without costs.

    Robin
  • John23
    John23 Member Posts: 2,122 Member
    PhillieG said:

    Alternatives are Always Welcome
    It's the constant bashing other methods you don't agree with that are frowned upon...
    Sorry about your brother-in-law. Pancreatic cancer is a tough one.
    -p

    Erbitux:
    "When growth factors bind to their receptors on the surface of the cell, the receptors give a signal that causes cells to divide. Some cancers are caused by mutated receptors that give a signal to divide even without growth factor. That causes the cells to divide uncontrollably. Cetuximab binds to such receptors and turns off that signal."

    In development:
    ‘Nanobubbles’ plus chemotherapy equals single-cell cancer targeting
    Rice teams with MD Anderson, Baylor College of Medicine to explore drug and gene delivery:
    HOUSTON — (April 9, 2012) — Using light-harvesting nanoparticles to convert laser energy into “plasmonic nanobubbles,” researchers at Rice University, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) are developing new methods to inject drugs and genetic payloads directly into cancer cells. In tests on drug-resistant cancer cells, the researchers found that delivering chemotherapy drugs with nanobubbles was up to 30 times more deadly to cancer cells than traditional drug treatment and required less than one-tenth the clinical dose.


    In response to your upcoming comments, I doubt there will ever be a "cure" that will work for everyone. Great strides are being made to combat cancer with a laser compared to a double barrel shotgun like they used to do. I know you well enough to know this isn't good enough for you. That's fine John, you are you and will always see the glass of water as being polluted.
    Be well...

    Phil....

    It isn't "bashing", Phil. It is telling it like it is.

    Too often people become complacent to the seriousness of cancer.

    After reading one thread after another where individuals are claiming
    that cancer is now "curable", and that "new chemo" can be used for
    "mop-up" to prevent recurrences, the complacency becomes more
    than evident. To date, there is no known "cure", and there are no
    treatments that seek out and destroy a single (1) cancer cell.

    The present treatments address clusters and tumors, and all too often
    leave single cells behind. Those cells become that lousy "recurrence"
    that we all fear.

    When the industry hears more outcries for some sort of major
    advancement in cancer treatments, we may see some change.

    But, when there continues to be a steady stream of those believing
    in the industry's hype, the profit outweighs the need.

    One of the reasons the industry is "looking at "alternatives" more
    seriously, is the fact that so many cancer victims are turning down
    present harsh chemical treatments and opting for an alternative
    instead.

    So yes, it does make a difference to the industry, to be able to provide
    what the public desires. If it's the addition of "grape seed extract"
    to their present repertoire of chemicals, it'll be added even if for no other
    reason than to continue marketing their same chemical.

    And Phil..... I realize -you- don't consider yourself a "victim" of cancer,
    but allow me to explain why -I- do......

    If I was robbed at gunpoint while pumping gas, shot in the head and
    hospitalized, I would be considered the victim of an armed robbery.

    If as a child, I was molested and beaten by my parents, I would be
    considered a victim of child abuse.

    If I was seriously and irreparably harmed by a surgeon who was
    drunk while operating on me, I would be considered a victim
    of an irresponsible surgeon.

    I have been irreparably harmed, and I continue to suffer from the
    ramifications of cancer. I am a victim of cancer; surviving perhaps
    as well as any other victim survives an invasive and personal attack
    to their well being, but a victim non-the-less.

    You can be offended if you desire, but personally.... I don't know
    what other term can explain the reason for our losses better,
    than having been victimized.

    My very best wishes for your continued good health!

    John
  • John23
    John23 Member Posts: 2,122 Member
    PhillieG said:

    Alternatives are Always Welcome
    It's the constant bashing other methods you don't agree with that are frowned upon...
    Sorry about your brother-in-law. Pancreatic cancer is a tough one.
    -p

    Erbitux:
    "When growth factors bind to their receptors on the surface of the cell, the receptors give a signal that causes cells to divide. Some cancers are caused by mutated receptors that give a signal to divide even without growth factor. That causes the cells to divide uncontrollably. Cetuximab binds to such receptors and turns off that signal."

    In development:
    ‘Nanobubbles’ plus chemotherapy equals single-cell cancer targeting
    Rice teams with MD Anderson, Baylor College of Medicine to explore drug and gene delivery:
    HOUSTON — (April 9, 2012) — Using light-harvesting nanoparticles to convert laser energy into “plasmonic nanobubbles,” researchers at Rice University, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) are developing new methods to inject drugs and genetic payloads directly into cancer cells. In tests on drug-resistant cancer cells, the researchers found that delivering chemotherapy drugs with nanobubbles was up to 30 times more deadly to cancer cells than traditional drug treatment and required less than one-tenth the clinical dose.


    In response to your upcoming comments, I doubt there will ever be a "cure" that will work for everyone. Great strides are being made to combat cancer with a laser compared to a double barrel shotgun like they used to do. I know you well enough to know this isn't good enough for you. That's fine John, you are you and will always see the glass of water as being polluted.
    Be well...

    Phil -

    Cetuximab does not target and destroy a -single- cancer cell,
    it is designed to attempt to target the cancer's specific genes,
    proteins, or the tissue environment that contributes to cancer
    growth and survival, but it is not designed to single out one
    specific cancer cell and destroy it.

    In fact, Cetuximab does not work in every instance, and that is
    well documented! It might be a step in a better direction than the
    industry has been headed, however.

    If you noticed, some companies and institutions are experimenting
    with Immunotherapy. Using our own immune system is really the
    only practical way to fight cancer. If the industry finds a way to
    get the immune system sensitized to cancer cells, it can tackle the
    job of removing them better than any "robot".

    If I told you that there already is a science that can manage to
    do that very thing; to use our own body to heal it's own ills.....
    Would you believe it? Would you add it to your present treatments
    in an effort to finally crest this terrible mountain you've been climbing?

    It's unfortunate, but I feel like TCM's Don Quixote. I'm getting
    too tired to fight this constant battle of disbelievers of anything
    -not western medicine-.

    Like you said Phil..... whatever works is fine.

    But if and when it's found to not work? Is it then time for a change
    in beliefs, or has time run out, and only time for hospice?

    I really would like to see people survive cancer. But so, so many
    simply do not survive the present technology that includes terribly
    harsh treatments that manages to destroy more than it helps.

    My best to all....

    John
  • PhillieG
    PhillieG Member Posts: 4,866 Member
    John23 said:

    Phil -

    Cetuximab does not target and destroy a -single- cancer cell,
    it is designed to attempt to target the cancer's specific genes,
    proteins, or the tissue environment that contributes to cancer
    growth and survival, but it is not designed to single out one
    specific cancer cell and destroy it.

    In fact, Cetuximab does not work in every instance, and that is
    well documented! It might be a step in a better direction than the
    industry has been headed, however.

    If you noticed, some companies and institutions are experimenting
    with Immunotherapy. Using our own immune system is really the
    only practical way to fight cancer. If the industry finds a way to
    get the immune system sensitized to cancer cells, it can tackle the
    job of removing them better than any "robot".

    If I told you that there already is a science that can manage to
    do that very thing; to use our own body to heal it's own ills.....
    Would you believe it? Would you add it to your present treatments
    in an effort to finally crest this terrible mountain you've been climbing?

    It's unfortunate, but I feel like TCM's Don Quixote. I'm getting
    too tired to fight this constant battle of disbelievers of anything
    -not western medicine-.

    Like you said Phil..... whatever works is fine.

    But if and when it's found to not work? Is it then time for a change
    in beliefs, or has time run out, and only time for hospice?

    I really would like to see people survive cancer. But so, so many
    simply do not survive the present technology that includes terribly
    harsh treatments that manages to destroy more than it helps.

    My best to all....

    John

    John
    No one can provide proof of anything. What works for one kills another.
    And that goes for TCM too (don't kid yourself and don't kid others)
    I will defend choices and all methods to beat cancer.
    Dealing with you is really a waste of my time.
    -p
  • PhillieG
    PhillieG Member Posts: 4,866 Member
    RobinKaye said:

    Targeting Cancer Cells
    Phil,

    On our first visit with the onc to discuss treatment: chemorad followed by FOLFOX after surgery, standard protocol I asked the doctor how does the chemo hit the cancer without destroying the
    good stuff. His answer, "it doesn't". He said that chemo is going to damage everything good and bad, there was no way to just go after the bad cells. Any systemic chemo is going to damage
    everything which is why there are so many side affects. I would imagine that HAI pumps and the like would only affect the targeted area and maybe there are drugs being worked on or are used for other cancers but for crc where is the chemo that only attacks the cancer?

    Many studies are being done to determine if a Stage 2 patient will derive enough benefit from chemo to subject themselves to the damage it will cause. I really do like that you keep it real but I've read plenty to back up John's statement that chemo damages the good stuff just as much as the bad. Most people will bounce back from chemo but some have permanent damage and I'm not sure anyone is ever the same again. Chemo is a trade-off, you will most likely get some benefit, from a little to a lot but it is not without costs.

    Robin

    Hi Robin
    I'm fully aware that other cells get damaged during chemo. Progress has been made so many current treatments do much, much less harm than they used to. Is it perfect? NO. Is it an option that has served many people well? YES.

    I'm not very familiar with stage II colon cancer. I did meet a woman the other day who was 78 and had stage II colon cancer. The benefit of doing chemo (statistically speaking if you're into stats) is not great at all. It's almost insignificant. Would I do chemo if I were stage II and 78? Probably not. But I'm not stage II and I'm not 78. I have stage IV colon cancer, I'm almost 55, and I am happy with my choices.

    Everything has a price...
    -phil
  • coloCan
    coloCan Member Posts: 1,944 Member
    PhillieG said:

    Hi Robin
    I'm fully aware that other cells get damaged during chemo. Progress has been made so many current treatments do much, much less harm than they used to. Is it perfect? NO. Is it an option that has served many people well? YES.

    I'm not very familiar with stage II colon cancer. I did meet a woman the other day who was 78 and had stage II colon cancer. The benefit of doing chemo (statistically speaking if you're into stats) is not great at all. It's almost insignificant. Would I do chemo if I were stage II and 78? Probably not. But I'm not stage II and I'm not 78. I have stage IV colon cancer, I'm almost 55, and I am happy with my choices.

    Everything has a price...
    -phil

    Isn't the targeting of individual cancer cells
    one of the objectives/advantages of research involving nanotechnology?

    (and here's a new,just publicized view of cancer:eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-08/ciot-loo082312.php)
  • danker
    danker Member Posts: 1,276 Member
    chemo
    I had a chemo pump 24/7 for the 5 weeks I was getting radiation. After resection and iliostomy take down onc wanted more chemo. Surgeon said it wasn't necessary.I went with the surgeon since didn't care for chemo side effects. Now over two years out from resection stil NED. As the king of Siam said;"tis a puzzlement."
  • smokeyjoe
    smokeyjoe Member Posts: 1,425 Member
    danker said:

    chemo
    I had a chemo pump 24/7 for the 5 weeks I was getting radiation. After resection and iliostomy take down onc wanted more chemo. Surgeon said it wasn't necessary.I went with the surgeon since didn't care for chemo side effects. Now over two years out from resection stil NED. As the king of Siam said;"tis a puzzlement."

    I need a tutorial on how to
    I need a tutorial on how to post a link....sorry this is long....At ASCO: Smart Bombs & Immune Boosters
    1 Comment
    By Ed Silverman // June 4th, 2012 // 8:38 am

    Cutting through the noise at a gathering where more than 30,000 physicians, pharmaceutical industry employees, investors and media is not so easy. But Bristol-Myers Squibb managed to do so this past weekend at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting with study results showing that a drug that uses the immune system shrank tumors in people with advanced lung, kidney and skin cancers.

    The findings, consequently, prompted enthusiastic talk that harnessing the immune system to fight cancer is finally showing promise and is likely to set off a new race to find similar treatments. “The whole idea of immunotherapy is really blossoming,” Amgen vp David Chang tells Bloomberg News. “It is going to be the next wave in cancer treatments.”

    Known as BMS-936558, the drug blocks a protein called PD-1, which stands for programmed death 1, a protein on the surface of activated T cells. The study shrank tumors in 18 percent of lung cancer patients, 27 percent of kidney cancer patients and 28 percent of melanoma patients who failed to show improvement on other therapies, according to data from a trial of 296 patients. Data was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (see here and here).

    “We are seeing responses in heavily treated patients — three different cancers, one drug,” Suzanne Topalian, a Johns Hopkins University melanoma specialist and lead investigator in the study, tells The New York Times. “This is a group of patients whose life expectancy was measured in a few months.” The results are from an early clinical trial, so it remains unclear whether the drug will improve survival, but Topalian remains optimistic because tumors that shrunk did not resume growth for more than a year.

    “The next frontier in the treatment of cancer requires meeting the goal of inducing a high frequency of long-lasting tumor response on the basis of selectable markers in order to personalize therapies,” Antoni Ribas of the Department of Medicine and the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California Los Angeles wrote in an accompanying editoral in the New England Journal of Medicine. “Inhibition of PD-1 may meet these expectations in selected cancers.”

    Meanwhile, Roche generated considerable buzz yesterday after unveiling Phase III data that showed its T-DM1 biologic hit the main endpoint in a study of 991 patients with breast cancer. The treatment, which delayed progression in metatstatic patients by an average of 3.2 months and also reduced the risk of adverse events, and prompted chatter that so-called ‘smart bombs’ that use antibodies are the next hot new technology for developing cancer meds.

    Known as Emilia, the trial randomly assigned women to get either T-DM1 or a combination of GlaxoSmithKline’s Tykerb and the Xeloda chemo drug. Median progression-free survival was 9.6 months for the T-DM1 arm while standard therapy delivered a median profession-free survival rate of 6.4 months. About 65 percent of the patients who were given T-DM1, which attachs a toxin to an antibody, were alive after two years. That compared with nearly 48 percent in the other arm (see statement).

    The drug works by carrying chemotherapy directly into malignant cells while bypassing healthy ones. Although full results were not released, the data impressed physicians, particuarly given the side effect profile, a long-standing issue among cancer patients.

    “This is a classic example of the magic bullet concept” first proposed more than 100 years ago but only now possible with advances in technology, Louis Weiner, director of Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, tells the Associated Press. “The antibody basically targets this very toxic drug right to the cancer cell and places it inside the cancer cell where the drug can do its damage” without harming healthy cells nearby.

    The results are a sort of vindication for Roche, by the way, after the FDA issued a Refuse To File letter two years ago to speed the approval process for the drug (back story). The drugmaker expects to seek approval from the FDA and the European Medicines Agency later this year.
  • John23
    John23 Member Posts: 2,122 Member
    smokeyjoe said:

    I need a tutorial on how to
    I need a tutorial on how to post a link....sorry this is long....At ASCO: Smart Bombs & Immune Boosters
    1 Comment
    By Ed Silverman // June 4th, 2012 // 8:38 am

    Cutting through the noise at a gathering where more than 30,000 physicians, pharmaceutical industry employees, investors and media is not so easy. But Bristol-Myers Squibb managed to do so this past weekend at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting with study results showing that a drug that uses the immune system shrank tumors in people with advanced lung, kidney and skin cancers.

    The findings, consequently, prompted enthusiastic talk that harnessing the immune system to fight cancer is finally showing promise and is likely to set off a new race to find similar treatments. “The whole idea of immunotherapy is really blossoming,” Amgen vp David Chang tells Bloomberg News. “It is going to be the next wave in cancer treatments.”

    Known as BMS-936558, the drug blocks a protein called PD-1, which stands for programmed death 1, a protein on the surface of activated T cells. The study shrank tumors in 18 percent of lung cancer patients, 27 percent of kidney cancer patients and 28 percent of melanoma patients who failed to show improvement on other therapies, according to data from a trial of 296 patients. Data was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (see here and here).

    “We are seeing responses in heavily treated patients — three different cancers, one drug,” Suzanne Topalian, a Johns Hopkins University melanoma specialist and lead investigator in the study, tells The New York Times. “This is a group of patients whose life expectancy was measured in a few months.” The results are from an early clinical trial, so it remains unclear whether the drug will improve survival, but Topalian remains optimistic because tumors that shrunk did not resume growth for more than a year.

    “The next frontier in the treatment of cancer requires meeting the goal of inducing a high frequency of long-lasting tumor response on the basis of selectable markers in order to personalize therapies,” Antoni Ribas of the Department of Medicine and the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California Los Angeles wrote in an accompanying editoral in the New England Journal of Medicine. “Inhibition of PD-1 may meet these expectations in selected cancers.”

    Meanwhile, Roche generated considerable buzz yesterday after unveiling Phase III data that showed its T-DM1 biologic hit the main endpoint in a study of 991 patients with breast cancer. The treatment, which delayed progression in metatstatic patients by an average of 3.2 months and also reduced the risk of adverse events, and prompted chatter that so-called ‘smart bombs’ that use antibodies are the next hot new technology for developing cancer meds.

    Known as Emilia, the trial randomly assigned women to get either T-DM1 or a combination of GlaxoSmithKline’s Tykerb and the Xeloda chemo drug. Median progression-free survival was 9.6 months for the T-DM1 arm while standard therapy delivered a median profession-free survival rate of 6.4 months. About 65 percent of the patients who were given T-DM1, which attachs a toxin to an antibody, were alive after two years. That compared with nearly 48 percent in the other arm (see statement).

    The drug works by carrying chemotherapy directly into malignant cells while bypassing healthy ones. Although full results were not released, the data impressed physicians, particuarly given the side effect profile, a long-standing issue among cancer patients.

    “This is a classic example of the magic bullet concept” first proposed more than 100 years ago but only now possible with advances in technology, Louis Weiner, director of Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, tells the Associated Press. “The antibody basically targets this very toxic drug right to the cancer cell and places it inside the cancer cell where the drug can do its damage” without harming healthy cells nearby.

    The results are a sort of vindication for Roche, by the way, after the FDA issued a Refuse To File letter two years ago to speed the approval process for the drug (back story). The drugmaker expects to seek approval from the FDA and the European Medicines Agency later this year.

    Thank you!
    Good post.

    Smart Bombs & Immune Boosters

    Best of health!

    John
  • herdizziness
    herdizziness Member Posts: 3,624 Member
    John23 said:

    So Worried -

    Mike's story is fairly common, and describes what having cancer
    is really like.

    There are absolutely no guarantees that any modality will work,
    so picking one that does the least amount of damage seems to
    make good sense.

    Starting with any alternative leaves you in a better position, since
    very few will damage the immune system or weaken health. That
    leaves an individual in better shape if the "alternative" fails to work,
    and healthy enough to start harsh chemical treatments, if there's
    no other option.

    Starting with harsh, damaging treatments first, leaves one handicapped
    with poorer health and a weakened immune system. Expecting an
    alternative to do great things is made much more difficult. Too much
    damage, and one can be left with a very poor functioning immune system,
    and nothing else but more harsh chemicals to look forward to.

    Here's a really simple explanation of cancer cells:

    Cancer cells begin life as a normal cell, but one that has been badly
    damaged. Too damaged to be able to take orders from the body,
    the cell begins to die. The immune system normally removes cells
    like that, but for some reason, in some of us, it overlooks that damaged
    cell. The cell begins to use the fermentation process to remain alive.
    It's like mold growing on a damp surface... It's just the natural transformation
    from one form of life to another.

    The cancer cell takes on some of the the characteristics of the host cell,
    and that is what the "type" is referred to. Some grow in the shape of a
    "goblet", some in the shape of a "signet ring". Shapes vary, as well the
    aggressiveness of the cell's ability to grow.

    But any and all the cancer cells are the same; they all stay alive via the
    fermentation process. They use glucose faster than most normal cells
    in the area they came from, and "steal" glucose from the body, starving
    good cells that also need glucose to survive.

    The trouble with using chemicals to try to kill cancer cells, is that there
    is no way presently, to target just the cancer cells. Chemical therapy
    and radiation damage as many (or more) good cells, as either does to the
    cancer cells. It's unfortunate, but true.

    If your husband does not desire to begin with chemical therapy, he should
    at least explore the use of some of the "alternatives" that others have had
    some success with.

    You can click on my name, go to my profile page, and read the "blog"
    section, if you'd like.

    You might want to do a search here for "2bhealed" and "scouty", and
    read about their success with "juicing".

    There are indeed other options to use to fight cancer. Harsh chemicals
    and radioactive nuclear beams aren't the only way to kill something that
    stays alive using such simple means.

    If the cancer is about to kill you, or invade an area that will surely cost
    you your life, then to use whatever works fastest makes perfect sense!

    Your husband will do fine, but he has to explore all the options, not just
    sit and watch time go by. The cancer is there because something went
    wrong, and he should do something to try to correct the condition that exists.

    Just killing a few cancer cells with chemicals and radiation, doesn't always do
    the trick........ I think looking at all the sadness we've had here this past year
    alone, will indicate the real failure of what "the cancer industry" has to offer.

    You husband has other options, along with conventional medicine, and he
    has the time now to explore it all.

    Oh..... and please do locate another colorectal surgeon, and get another
    opinion. The opinion should be from a surgeon not of the same group
    or organization as the present one. Oncologists sell chemical treatments,
    surgeons are usually more objective.

    Best hopes for a great, long life for you both!

    John

    "Starting with any alternative leaves you in a better position"
    Um, NO!! There are down right DANGEROUS stuff being touted as Alternative, so we need to be mindful of which words we use. Those words above that you used John are just plain scary. We have one guy in here constantly doing coffee enema's, when the American Cancer Society specifically mentions that they can be dangerous to use, and not recommended, and that Scientific research does NOT support the use of coffee enema's or any other enemas for that matter.
    So alternatives can hurt you, I only used one specific example, but there are many more. One should be very, very careful entering into the alternative world WITHOUT their onc's knowledge and without questioning their onc as to whether an alternative can be dangerous or helpful. There are helpful ones out there, but not ALL of them.
    You especially have to be very careful about alternative people, using the word "Doctor" in front of their name, as we have seen, it doesn't mean their a "real" doctor that went through medical school, scary stuff what some will do and sell in the name of profit for themselves and not the welfare of a cancer patient.
    Please note, that I did say some alternative stuff is good, and I believe can compliment the chemo, but not without the chemo or radiation in tandem with it.
    Winter Marie
  • kristasplace
    kristasplace Member Posts: 957 Member
    My favorite subject!
    I rarely post here anymore, but the posts about whether or not to do chemo always interest me! Being on both ends of the debate; diagnosed in 2007 a IIIc with four lymphs involved, i did the 5fu pump with 30 radiation treatments, and the typical 6 months of folfox. My onc told me the following year when a recurrence had been found in my lung that after all the work i just did, there was no proof either way whether folfox actually worked. I did the research and learned that there isn't any proof that ANY chemo works, and can in fact cause more cancer, and can devastate the immune system so that your body doesn't have a chance to beat it on it's own.

    Anyway, i am usually on the side for alternatives, but would never tell the person doing chemo that their choice is wrong. For me, alternatives have worked great. After one other recurrence in 2010, and the lung met finally taken care of this year, i'm now NED. My onc finally isn't even recommending chemo at this point for me. Stage IV's are never considered cured, but there are several people on this board who were stage IV's and are now cancer free for 5+ years. Some of them did chemo, and some of them didn't. There are stage I's that just before the five year clean mark came, they discovered metastasis. Not as common, but it does happen, as John23 pointed out.

    I agree that treatment is an extremely personal choice that should have a lot of serious thought and research put into it. It's my personal belief that if your belief system for one choice or another is strong enough, and you live a happy, satisfying existance, anything will work to defeat the beast.

    Please let us know what he chooses!

    Hugs,
    Krista