It seems my previous question was difficult to understand , here it goes again!.

pepebcn said:

Yes but what's on if you get free of tumors ?
What means chemo not working forever ?,what would happen if once free of tumors you stop chemo?No chance of staying free of it for long term? .
What's the difference to be operated and NED or necrosed with chemo and NED as well? Considering cancerous cells wouldn't be in the tumors removed or killed any more, they use to be in the blood flow or lymphatic system so..... both can't be operated so must be killed with chemo,.Resuming don't you think to get free of cancer once you got a met is not more a question of chemo than surgery?.How those mets arrived there from the colon ? via blood or lymph system not via the primary tumor by it self!.
Well interesting question !

SisterSledge said:

Good question!
I'm kinda wondering the same thing...I'm stage4, mets to liver...no cancer elsewhere. I've been on chemo for a few months and have recently been told that my tumors have shrunk enough to consider liver resection (awaiting a meeting with Huntsman Cancer Center surgeon when Medicaid is approved). Since I'm not having bad reactions to chemo and I'm scared of the surgery, it would seem easier on me to just do chemo until the tumors are gone.

However, I'm led to understand that the tumors will not continue to decrease from chemo indefinitely...in fact, my Dr Doom says that this chemo I'm using will stop working sooner rather than later. Then, if liver is not resectionable, we'd need to change chemo to continue getting positive results.

Also, since all chemo drugs seem to stop being effective at some point for most people, it is best to reserve chemo usage for when surgery isn't an option.

John23 said:

Pepe’ & Sis….
Re:
”…..it would seem easier on me to just do chemo until the tumors are gone.
…..However, I'm led to understand that the tumors will not continue to decrease
from chemo indefinitely...”

This gets confusing.

Chemo can’t kill a cancer cell, if it can’t identify it as a cancer cell. That’s the
problem with today’s technology. The chemicals kill just fine - like an atom bomb,
and just as arbitrary of a killer as an atom bomb. The bigger problem, is that there
isn’t technology to aim the bomb accurately, or deliver the bomb to the exact
target….. it’s like an Iraqi scud missile.

So (as far as my understanding goes), when/if the tumor shrinks to a small size,
the chemicals lose the target. The cancer that remains is still strong enough to
remain alive, and will eventually grow in size once again.

I know I’ve typed this before, but: There’s some newer studies that seem
to indicate that the immune system often becomes sensitized to the chemicals
that dying cancer cells release. If the immune system is strong enough after
being bombarded with those atom bombs, it often seeks out and destroys
the balance of cancer cells that remain.

It makes sense enough, that many oncologists are now using less chemicals
for shorter durations, and using a “wait and see” approach, rather than the
old “keep pumping poison until they drop” mentality.

I hate cancer.

Stay well, please.

John

John23 said:

Pepe' -
Re:
"the question was ,if anybody had achieved some time of NED just
by having chemo,i did it and i think must be many others out there!."

Ok, for my two centavo's worth:

I guess I get confused with the "NED" situation and the concern
to have "reached NED"...

I was "NED" for many, many years prior to my first diagnosis
of colon cancer. They also said it probably took 7 or 8 years for
the tumor to grow that big! Imagine that? I was NED for over
eight years while the damned thing was in there, eating away!

It makes me wonder just how many people are walking around,
that have had yearly check-ups, physicals, colonoscopy, etc,
without ever having any indication of a cancer growing within?
That's being "NED".

Personally, for me, being told that "we can't say for sure the cancer
is gone", suits me better than being told I'm "NED".

It's called "semantics" in our language. It's the use of an alternate word,
or statement, to make a situation sound different.... The same "meaning"
but said using different, words.... (did I explain that right?)

So, in the context that you're asking the question? Anyone, and
probably -everyone- can achieve "NED" with chemo, radiation,
or surgery alone. We all were "NED" right up to the day of our
diagnosis, right?

The use of semantics is a great sales tool; it can change the illusion
of a product to suit the needs of an individual. And of course, we
all use the concept daily in normal conversation, to either avoid
arguments, or start 'em. (haha)

I.E. "That dress make you look fat" vs "It really enhances your figure".

So anyway, great to hear you're doing great! I am hoping to see
you around for a long, long time!

I wish I could do something to keep us -all- around for a long, long time!

Stay healthy!

John

PS:

No-one, that has ever had a diagnosis of cancer, should ever
let their guard down, or become complacent to any "good sounding"
report concerning the absence of signs of cancer.

That -is not- to say that we should go around 24/7/365 in total fear
that cancer is lurking within, or allow the thought of it to consume us.

It's the idea that we should not assume that we are in the clear,
and go back to the lifestyle of ignoring signs of ill health, and by
taking medications that hide symptoms.


.