Okay folks...

I try not to worry about statistics.  Neither as a caregiver or a person NED from cancer.  They are statistics, not absolutes.  Try just to live.

When I was first diagnosed I didn't know anyone with cancer and I was pretty thrown with my diagnosis because I didn't know what to expect. I asked my oncologist what my chances were and he said he didn't pay much attention to statistics because all his patients were so different. I pushed and he said they were 50/50. I stopped a minute and said ok. I will be the 50% that is living in 5 years. I am crazy enough to think I will be okay. I learned long ago not to stress about things out of my control. The Serenity Prayer keeps me at peace with this whole journey. 

Coppercent said:

Don't really pay attention to them at all.

When I was first diagnosed I didn't know anyone with cancer and I was pretty thrown with my diagnosis because I didn't know what to expect. I asked my oncologist what my chances were and he said he didn't pay much attention to statistics because all his patients were so different. I pushed and he said they were 50/50. I stopped a minute and said ok. I will be the 50% that is living in 5 years. I am crazy enough to think I will be okay. I learned long ago not to stress about things out of my control. The Serenity Prayer keeps me at peace with this whole journey. 

like you are going to beat this, whatever treatment option you choose. Like coppercent said, why stress?? By statistic numbers, my husband should be dead by now.  But 4.9 years later, he's still here; not NED, still in treatment (trial study),stable, and a pretty good quality of life.

Take that, statistics! 

Angela

a famous evolutionary biologist.  He was dx'ed as a young man with peritoneal mesithelioma, a deadly cancer that kills almost all who get it within a few years.  Being a scientist, he immediately delved into the research, and the first thing he noticed was that in the bell curve graph that showed mortality of patients, there was a "tail" on the far right-hand side of the graph.  This tail represented the very small percentage who lived longer than 5 years, in a few cases, much, much longer.

He decided right then that he was going to be in that tail, and as it so happened, he was.  He lived for many years (although he did eventually die from cancer, it was a different cancer, when he was 60 years old).

What I took from this story is this:  why not assume you (or your loved one) will be in that tail, until forced by circumstances to acknowledge otherwise?  It probably won't make any real difference in terms of longevity, but it will certainly make the days that we are given more pleasant.

I personally didn't look at any stats until I had been NED for over a year.  Once I read the numbers (which were shockingly bad), I was really glad that I hadn't read up on them when I was in the midst of the battle.  Would have been very disheartening, I think.

Wishing you and your loved one well~Ann Alexandria

John23 said:

Ok….let me add to this…

 

“New statistics” are not based on “fact”; the “new statistics” are not based on historical data, it is based on “projections”.

 

“Projected outcomes” are assumed outcomes; assumed results of a very minor, short termed study.

 

If anyone takes these stock enhancing “forward looking statements” from drug manufacturers seriously, it’s a shame waiting to be a sham.

 

Accurate statistics are compiled over a ten year period. It takes time to compile the data, and time for medications to work (or not work). To assume even for a minute, that data can be accumulated within a short period of time that would be at all useful, is an example of true blind ignorance of fact; wishful thinking at the best…

 

Statistics from ten years ago remains the rule. Anything less than ten years is a simple projection of hopeful wishes.

 

And yes, you can put your bank account on that.

 

Do not lose faith, but do be aware of reality.

 

Best wishes for longevity,

 

John

 

 

I agree that statistics need to be based on historical data. I did not mean projected outcomes. I was thinking of, say, overall 5 year survival statistics for the different stages of colon cancer, which obviously would have had to follow patients for at least 5 years to be valid. To find 10 year survival you would need to follow patients for 10 years. I believe that statistics from more recently published scientifically valid studies that followed patients for the appropriate length of time would probably be closer to what current patients might expect than would studies published at a time when the study participants had more limited treatment options. And the details of the study can make a big difference in exacly what the results mean and whether or not they might apply in my case. I also understand that a 95% 5 year survival rate doesn't tell me that I personally will survive 5 years, nor does a 95% 5 year fatality rate tell me that I won't survive 5 years.

Looking at short-term results from something like a clinical trial, I would always expect that real-world results won't be as good as what the trial shows. You need to fit their criteria to be in the trial in the first place, trial participants are generally monitored fairly closely, and problems and side effects may show up after the trial ends. I would consider them "best-case-scenario" results.

Warm Regards,

Serenity

Historical statistics are outdated. It usually takes several years of compiling data beforee they are made public knowledge but by that time there could be new treatments and proceedures available. There are so many that beat the statistics me included.