Survival Rates confusing

rwkaren

Why do websites say the survival rates for 3b are worse than 3c? Wouldn't you expect it to be the other way around?

beaumontdave

you'd have to be more

you'd have to be more specific, b versus c is just more nodal involvement [can't remember if it's >5] and risk is based on spread and location. Come back with a cite, for a better answer.

Robert2015

I have seen

on different web resoureces (and even on ACS) 3a having a lower rate than 3b etc. however they all still have similar rates (aka %'s).  It is so important to ignore those as they are statistics they most likely will not apply to you.  With this disease I have learned to focus on the positive when able, communicate to your personal support venues (here, at home, work, friends, caregivers), and talk to those still fighting and surviving.  The people here on this forum are quite postive, helpful, and will give you information on how to lessen the pain, fears, emotional trama as well information on meds, status', what to do's, how to communicate with your medical team.   Blessings!

SandiaBuddy

Survival rates

When I first took a look at survival rates, I freaked out a bit.  Please be aware that the rates quoted are often from old studies where the treatments and surgeries were not as effective.  Also, they deal with the population in general, sometimes dealing with people who are older and sicker ("co-morbidities" such as diabetes or heart disease) than you may be.  Your specific chance of survival may well be substantially higher than the statistics you are seeing.  Plus, the treatments you choose and how you live your life (diet, exercise etc.) may improve your chances substantially.  It is probably better to have your doctors give you an opinion tailored to you, as opposed to seeing what is posted online and in published studies.  I hope this helps--it did for me!

blessed39

Stage four

RWkaren, on this site you will find lots of friends with the same questions

and many good answers. I wouldn't focus too much on what the survival rates or stages.

I was in remission before I knew I had been diagnosed with stage four. I am glad I didn't find out til later.

I wrote about my experience entitled "How I Beat Stage Four Colon Cancer." If you would care to read it,

just go to my site and click on blog. God bless you in this journey.  blessed39

 

Coachjim

What I've learned

It's all 100%.  Either you survive or you don't.  

Used to say (might still say) Stage I has a higher risk of death than Stage III but that's because doctors were not following people who were Stage I and by time they had symptoms, they were very advanced Stage IV's.  

Most web sites say 50% of people with Stage III will have a recurrence.  It looks like more, because not too many people who are cured hang around for years and years, but before a bunch of people left the forum a few years ago (some came back under a new username), there were a good number of Stage III and Stage IV who were cured and many years out after being pronounced cured. 

Coach

zx10guy

These nomograms may help:

These nomograms may help:

https://www.mskcc.org/nomograms/colorectal

http://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-professionals/cancer-prediction-tools/colon-cancer

http://www3.mdanderson.org/app/medcalc/index.cfm?pagename=coloncancer

http://www3.mdanderson.org/app/medcalc/index.cfm?pagename=rectumcancer

 

thingy45

Ned, never cured

hi, I was stage 4 with one nodule involved, tumors at 3 places, they took 10 pounds of cancer out if me with 40 cm of colon.now I'm stage 3 and still NED. My operation was in April 25 2011. I declined the offered Chemo and Radiation. I'm one of the lucky ones. have now diverticulitis, food running right through me within hour of consuming. It's a nuisance, but I'm stil around, enjoying life.

there is always hope. One day at a time is my motto.

BillO60

SandiaBuddy said:

Survival rates

When I first took a look at survival rates, I freaked out a bit.  Please be aware that the rates quoted are often from old studies where the treatments and surgeries were not as effective.  Also, they deal with the population in general, sometimes dealing with people who are older and sicker ("co-morbidities" such as diabetes or heart disease) than you may be.  Your specific chance of survival may well be substantially higher than the statistics you are seeing.  Plus, the treatments you choose and how you live your life (diet, exercise etc.) may improve your chances substantially.  It is probably better to have your doctors give you an opinion tailored to you, as opposed to seeing what is posted online and in published studies.  I hope this helps--it did for me!

Guess Work R Us
Totally agree. There are so many new treatment modalities that have become mainstream over the last decade that the old charts are just not a good representation of the survivial rates being seen now. But there's not enough widespread studies, that I've found anyway, so the websites and doctors are still using outdated material.

Just an additional piece of info I'd come across when I was trying to understand where the stats came from. If a patient was diagnosed with cancer and died 6 months later from a stroke, heart attack, or whatever the statistics would still include that patient as someone who only survived 6 months.

I was diagnosed with colorectal cancer in March 2015. I've been through radiation therapy, surgery, two chemotherapies, one liver ablation, and will soon be adding stereostatic radiation therapy on some new lung tumors and then another course of chemo. My wife passed away in 1999 with colon cancer. The treatment in the mid-1990's was surgery and 5FU. She survived for 5 years. If some of the treatment options I've been given had been available back then it might have made a difference in not just how long she lived but the quality of life.

There's a reason why Han Solo made the statement, "Never tell me the odds". If someone believes the stats then it takes away their belief that they have any control in the outcome. That's never good. Unless someone can tell me with a 100% absolute certainty that I will die from this disease within 3, 4, 5 or whatever years then the statistics mean nothing to me which means I do have some control over the outcome.

danker

Coachjim said:

What I've learned

It's all 100%.  Either you survive or you don't.  

Used to say (might still say) Stage I has a higher risk of death than Stage III but that's because doctors were not following people who were Stage I and by time they had symptoms, they were very advanced Stage IV's.  

Most web sites say 50% of people with Stage III will have a recurrence.  It looks like more, because not too many people who are cured hang around for years and years, but before a bunch of people left the forum a few years ago (some came back under a new username), there were a good number of Stage III and Stage IV who were cured and many years out after being pronounced cured. 

Coach

Cured

Trubrit says only ham is cured.  We cancer survivor are NED currently, with no guarantee it won't return!!!

mozart13

Work in progress

stage one are often treated with operation only, there is some study that said if cancer treated with surgery only, any cancer, 75% come back within 2 years.

Another thing is how surgery was donne, my surgeon said its important to get every thing in one piece and intact, no holes ,out, maybe thats why post op chemo doesnt make much difference, if cancer cells are distrubed during surgery, by cutting sample in small pieces, or pocking while too much.

folfox when  given post chemo/ rad, every 3 weeks, only 3 dosses, brings complete clinical response to 50% , comparing to 25% with chemo/rad only.

The question here is, is there too much of the gap between initial chemo/rad and folfox after surgery, are cancer cells more resiliant with longer wait, did cancer cells get disturbed during surgery and broke away.

We know that peak time for radiation is about 16,17 weeks from initiation of therapy, and also there is human factor, some people respond better than other to therapy.

ron50

I came from a different era

   I was diagnosed in jan 1998. My surgeon removed the tumour from my transverse and descending colon. He described it as frightfully aggressive as a matter of fact he half seriously told me he could almost see it growing. His advice to me was do what you want to do now because you won't have much time,,three years maximum. I had 48 sessions of 5fu enhanced every fortnight with 9 tablets of levamisole over three days after the 5fu infusion. Levamisole was banned in 2001 for often fatal side effects plus it was not considered any use in killing cancer (only patients). I have not had a great time surviving. I have a raft of auto-immune diseases including nephrotic syndrome of the kidneys, psoriatic arthritis,auto immune hepatitis, auto immune peripheral neuropathy. Erratic heart beats and probable congestive heart failure. As a result of high dose prednisone I also have type two diabetes and osteo penia. I'm 67 and still work four days a week. I am now in year twenty of survival , still cancer free. I've lived on my own for the last ten years. In hindsight on cancer survival statistics you only get twenty years for murder. People tell me I should be grateful to still be alive. I ask them why, it is only the morning and nightime doses of cyclosporine keeping me upright. Funny thing about strong immuno suppressants. If a heart transplant patient survives the first year without rejection , they are statistically more likely to die from skin cancer than heart problems. The honest truth is that once you have had cancer you are in the zone and only constant vigalence and surveilance will keep you going. I have just had a colonoscopy where the time frame was three years , due to a backlog in colonoscopies I had it at three years and six moths. They removed four polyps , the biggest was eleven mm. Very fortunately for me they were all tubular adenomas , the least likely to turn.. But they were following the same rapid growth pattern of my original cancer. I have been told now that I will never again go beyond two years for a scope. My experiences have proved to me that I constantly live in survival mode and that surviving survival is not easy.  I take my hat off to all survivors particularly those  like Philleg and John 23 who have never had a break from active cancer but still live on despite it . Live for the good times and just accept the bad as a rite of passage. Good health to all ... Ron. 

Helen321

Ignore all of those rates.

Ignore all of those rates.  They include people who die from heart attacks.  I'm not kidding.  They are all people with 3C and 3B cancer who die period.  So inaccurate.  Will yourself to live and then just do your best. You cant let an inaccurate chart scare you. I did for 6 months and then I said screw this and went into survivor mode. If I didnt make it at least I tried. An inaccurate chart is not a good indicator, your willingness to do whatever you can to help yourself is the absolute best chart you'll ever need.