5-yr. survival

ksusan
ksusan Member Posts: 8 Member
in Lung Cancer #1

I know people will scold me for reading about survival stats but I have been asking for specifics re: my own l.c. prognosis for 9 months and gotten no solid info so today I finally found research results from Medline articles that clearly show that patients with multiple mediastinal cancerous lymph nodes don't survive 5 years even with surgery, chemo and radiation so why have I been subjected to this non-curative therapy and why aren't doctors honest about mediastinal node involvement as predictors of survival?

 

I have sought others who've had multiple nodes in center chest and found no one responded.

Comments

  • z
    z Member Posts: 1,414 Member
    #2
    ksusan

    I post on Inspire as theres a lot of traffic there.  Please register and post your question there.  I wish you well. Lori

  • dennycee
    dennycee Member Posts: 857 Member
    #3
    Statistics

    There is nothing wrong with looking at them.   Especially if they motivate you to take care of establishing your power of attorney, medical directives, etc.  As with all statistical analyses, the five year mark is a node (of another type).  some go longer, some shorter, do you have information that leads you to believe that you will fall into the shorter category?  

    As Z suggested, check out Inspire.com and also cancergrace.org.  

  • ksusan
    ksusan Member Posts: 8 Member
    #4
    dennycee said:

    Statistics

    There is nothing wrong with looking at them.   Especially if they motivate you to take care of establishing your power of attorney, medical directives, etc.  As with all statistical analyses, the five year mark is a node (of another type).  some go longer, some shorter, do you have information that leads you to believe that you will fall into the shorter category?  

    As Z suggested, check out Inspire.com and also cancergrace.org.  

    Yes. The number of nodes (9)

    Yes. The number of nodes (9) and their location within center chest.

  • Ex_Rock_n_Roller
    Ex_Rock_n_Roller Member Posts: 281 Member
    #5
    What Denny said.

    I also wouldn't scold anybody for looking at survival stats and getting their life in order in case the outcome is bad, but it does pay to keep in mind that the survival stats are the median: half of us will do better and half worse. You're not going to find out which half you're in without getting treated. You may be in the group that benefits.

    The other issue is that it's not five years or zero. Suppose treatment got you three years. Would that have been worth it? In my opinion, yes.

    IOW, if you're betting, you bet on the stats. If you're trying to determine what to do, for my money, you try treatment and see how it works for you. For what it's worth, I haven't known of any doctors that hide the probabilities of success. If anything, they usually get raked over the coals for deflating people by telling them the truth. I think the smart ones don't address the subject unless asked directly.

     

     

  • kumar9211
    kumar9211 Member Posts: 1
    #6
    Ex_Rock_n_Roller said:

    What Denny said.

    I also wouldn't scold anybody for looking at survival stats and getting their life in order in case the outcome is bad, but it does pay to keep in mind that the survival stats are the median: half of us will do better and half worse. You're not going to find out which half you're in without getting treated. You may be in the group that benefits.

    The other issue is that it's not five years or zero. Suppose treatment got you three years. Would that have been worth it? In my opinion, yes.

    IOW, if you're betting, you bet on the stats. If you're trying to determine what to do, for my money, you try treatment and see how it works for you. For what it's worth, I haven't known of any doctors that hide the probabilities of success. If anything, they usually get raked over the coals for deflating people by telling them the truth. I think the smart ones don't address the subject unless asked directly.

     

     

    on survival

    i agree with denny. Stats are not apropriate they vary infact the course of life should not be matched with what stats say. Every individual lives with a difference. My dad has sclc and no stat is going to decide how many years he is going to live. I think we demoralize ourselves by loking at stats. I know two persons in my city INDIA who have sclc and have survived one of them has crossed more than 11 years afetr treatment of sclc extensive stage. is  Hope is a beautiful thing we must hope. No body is going to take hope away from me or us. I pray that soon technology and genius brains come up with a solution to get rid of all types of cancers. I wish a cancer free world.  

  • Dapsterd
    Dapsterd Member Posts: 291
    #7
    Ex_Rock_n_Roller said:

    What Denny said.

    I also wouldn't scold anybody for looking at survival stats and getting their life in order in case the outcome is bad, but it does pay to keep in mind that the survival stats are the median: half of us will do better and half worse. You're not going to find out which half you're in without getting treated. You may be in the group that benefits.

    The other issue is that it's not five years or zero. Suppose treatment got you three years. Would that have been worth it? In my opinion, yes.

    IOW, if you're betting, you bet on the stats. If you're trying to determine what to do, for my money, you try treatment and see how it works for you. For what it's worth, I haven't known of any doctors that hide the probabilities of success. If anything, they usually get raked over the coals for deflating people by telling them the truth. I think the smart ones don't address the subject unless asked directly.

     

     

    yes

    Dennycee and Ex rock/roller is correct..if we only looked at stats....we all would not be here now!

    Dapsterd

Discussion Boards