BC survivor w/o chemo treatment

energy

Anyone out there who didn't do chemo although it was recommended? And how are you doing?

lovonna

I know of one person who did not do chemo after breast cancer surgery, she is now six years out and no recurrence. She was stage II, negative in lymphnodes.
I also know a 27 year survivor that took one chemo treatment, became very sick from it and refused any more treatments.
My own personal experience is that I was stage IIA, negative in lymphnodes, took half my treatments and stopped early due to complications with my blood pressure (oncologist recommended) had a recurrence in my skin and now starting radiation.
LoVonna

energy

lovonna said:

I know of one person who did not do chemo after breast cancer surgery, she is now six years out and no recurrence. She was stage II, negative in lymphnodes.
I also know a 27 year survivor that took one chemo treatment, became very sick from it and refused any more treatments.
My own personal experience is that I was stage IIA, negative in lymphnodes, took half my treatments and stopped early due to complications with my blood pressure (oncologist recommended) had a recurrence in my skin and now starting radiation.
LoVonna

I'd like to hear more

Elainehz

In my opinion, whether to do a chemo depends on the stage you are in. If it is an advanced cancer, the chemo or radio is a must. However, you may still try to choose some other medicines or treatments combined with the process that could improve the quality of life. e.g. you may have a look at the website below:
www.kanglaite.com

24242

I do know of a few but they have changed their lives drastically and often resorted to alternative therapies or products.
I think too if not in lymphnodes one might think of not going through more than they must. My thought has always been if I am going to survive this I want every possible effort and even if just a couple percentage points of a benefit I wanted them. I too had thought I wouldn't go through the treatments thinking I could never make it but I did. I guess when you have stage 3 with positive nodes and sick it is easy to think what is the point. 9 years survival and going strong has made it worth while even though I had allot to contend with after everything was done.
One has to decide what is they really want.
Tara

inkblot

Hi energy,

Deciding what is best for ourselves is part of the
anguish we experience once we know we have cancer. It's a difficult decision to make: chemo or no chemo.

My advice is to do a lot of research and compare your own pathology report with the reports of people for whom a particular chemo regimen is recommended. Does this stack up with your report and your docs recommendations? Get at least one 2nd medical opinion. Decide how you feel about it, deep inside and make your best decision based upon all that and more.

It's not wise for others to try to tell you what you should or should not do. It is your body, your future and the bottom-line truth is that statistics are just that. Not necessarily applicable to you or your particular situation. We are all, foremostly, individuals. Our chemical, biological and spiritual make up is unique. Although we may fall into one or the other statistical grouping, per our pathology, we still remain different in our responses to different treatment modalities, healing times, side effects of treatment (long-term and short-term) and what we feel, in our hearts and souls is right for us. There is much to consider.

There are some, in the medical field, as well as the Naturopathic field, who feel that many times, surgery alone is curative. But, again, there is absolutely no way to know this for sure.
There is no test or screening available to prove one way or the other, that chemo works, post surgery, for bc, unless there are mets which can be followed on MRI's, etc. wherein chemo can be shown to shrink a known tumor. Even tumor markers are not 100% reliable as a follow up tool. some docs use them and some don't. After all is said and done, it typically comes down to symptoms anyway, which is the big beacon to shine a light toward the likely spot of any troubles. Then, the docs can look there for it. Otherwise they don't know where to begin looking when the old tumor markers have jumped.

Chemo can save lives. I've no doubt about that.
It can also be an exercise in futility. I've no doubt about that either. I'm convinced of both, equally, accepting that each person is unique. But there is no way anyone can say: If you have chemo, you'll never have a metastasis or a recurrence of cancer or even a new, unrelated cancer. There's also no way anyone can say that you'll regret not having chemo and that if you have a recurrence, it will be because you DIDN'T have chemo. The science just isn't there. No proof either way. You can have every treatment possible and still get a met or recurrence. You can forego any treatment beyond surgery and live
as long as you would have lived otherwise, with no cancer problems or recurrence. That's the real pain of having cancer I think. There are no specifics, no answers to our questions. Just statistics. I've come to believe, over the years, that statistics actually can only effectively serve the doctors and their recommendations. They don't serve us that well really because I've seen too many people beat extreme odds and leave the docs scratching their heads, while others have lost their battles, when everything possible had been done. They had all the treatments recommended, had a good prognosis from the get-go and in the end, it just wasn't successful. No test can tell us why.

I believe it's in our interest to be become our own advocates. To educate ourselves, know ourselves and in the end make our choice and stick with it. We have that right. And there's never any need to apologize for taking a different path or for choosing every traditional medical thing that's suggested. It's our lives and our decision.

I almost decided not to have chemo at all. Only one thing caused me to sway in favor of it. The fact that I was Her/2neu positive (3+). My cancer
being so aggressive, I felt the chemo gave me a bit of an edge. Otherwise, I'd have been perfectly content with radiation, post lumpectomy. The reasons (and I'll be frank about them) is that I knew many who'd had chemo and regretted it. I also understood the long-term damage that it can potentially do. I didn't want to risk my quality of life becoming very poor, later. Quality of life matters greatly to me, as it does to all of us, and we each have our limits on what's doable for us and what isn't, but when we're faced with a choice which has the potential to compromise that quality to an unacceptable level, well, we certainly think long and hard about whether it's a risk we're willing to take. After much research and study and talking to different survivors and doctors as well, I went for it. Once I made my decision, I never looked back or 2nd guessed myself. I knew and understood my choice and was busy making peace with that choice.

Neither we nor the doctors have any crystal balls and at such a time, we cannot place our decisions into the hands of anyone other than ourselves. Talking with others is extremely helpful and I admire that you're taking that step. Just keep in mind that there are many alternatives to traditional medicine and many ways to combine some of those with traditional chemo. Complementary has a place in my opinion. For some individuals, that is the best of both worlds. True, for some, no treatment beyond surgery is what they choose and I respect that greatly. Our medical doctors only know, understand and appreciate the medical approach. Naturally, this is what they recommend. Not to mention that there is a HUGE profit in cancer treatment. A few medical docs are into complementary's but they're definitely a minority. Perhaps consult with a good Naturopathic Doctor before you come to your final conclusions and see how you feel about it. Perhaps both methods can be combined in some way for you, which is agreeable to your medical doctor as well.

Keep in mind that there is more than one way to get chemo also. Some centers give Adriamycin in an IV drip, as opposed to the rapid push. Believing it causes fewer side effects and is equally effective in eradicating any stray cancer
cells. Critics of that method believe that it is less effective. Who is correct? Likely, both are. While most of us do fairly well
on chemo, not everyone does. Again, we're all different. Until the day comes when we have better medical choices than we have now, the gold standards are what's offered within the medical community, with a few docs, here and there, offering some off-label use of certain chemo agents.

Deciding what to do is a big plate of spaghetti to unravel. But, the good news is that you WILL come to your decision...one that is uniquely yours and once you make it, be at peace with it, whatever it may be. I wish you the best and please keep us posted.

Love, light and laughter,
Ink