Does radiation make sense when you have already gotten chemo?
Eva
Comments
-
It's the "routine"
for radiation to follow chemo if you've kept your breast (had a lumpectomy) and in some cases even after mastectomy. If you need chemo, they don't delay it because chemo is systemic and will hopefully destroy any microscopic cells in other areas of your body they don't know about. Doing radiation first would let them sit there and grow undisturbed. Radiation is the bullet to areas they KNOW you had cancer. With a lumpectomy, you still have breast tissue and since they didn't remove all of your breast, there could be some other areas left behind.
All cancer treatments can cause a secondary cancer, including chemotherapy. Because treatments are improved and cancer patients are living longer, more of the long term effects are presenting themselves.
For me, I wanted to do whatever I could to kill the breast cancer and both chemo and radiation (and Arimidex) were recommended. When facing surgery, I was told if I had a lumpectomy that I would also have to have radiation, that the odds were pretty much the same in early stage cancer with lumpectomy and radiation vs. mastectomy. I don't know what they would have said if I said I want a lumpectomy but no radiation. No one knows what the future is going to bring. I figured I needed to deal with the breast cancer because we KNEW it was there. IF a secondary cancer develops, I'll deal with that. The odds are small, but certainly not unheard of.
Are you considering NOT doing radiation?
Suzanne0 -
My oncologist said that
My oncologist said that radiation would kill any cancer cells that might be in the area where they removed my breast. I don't know if that's what has happened, but I was willing to do anything and radiation is a walk in the park compared to chemo.0 -
My oncologist showed me apoplolly said:My oncologist said that
My oncologist said that radiation would kill any cancer cells that might be in the area where they removed my breast. I don't know if that's what has happened, but I was willing to do anything and radiation is a walk in the park compared to chemo.
My oncologist showed me a chart, each treatment procedure I endured decreased my odds for cancer re-occurrence by a lot. So since I've done chemo, had a mastectomy, currently doing radiation and soon will be on hormone therapy my odds for re-occurrence are in the low percentile. Radiation is very much a key to beating cancer permanently.
Lorrie0 -
my regime consists ofbutterflylvr said:My oncologist showed me a
My oncologist showed me a chart, each treatment procedure I endured decreased my odds for cancer re-occurrence by a lot. So since I've done chemo, had a mastectomy, currently doing radiation and soon will be on hormone therapy my odds for re-occurrence are in the low percentile. Radiation is very much a key to beating cancer permanently.
Lorrie
chemo, surgery, radiation and then tamoxifin or an AI drug. I met with my radiation oncologist who said that the radiation was to kill an remaining microscopic cells around the original cancer site. She did say there was a small chance it could cause a secondary cancer when I'm 70,(I;m 44 now) and I said let me live until 70 and then I'll worry about that - I want to get rid of this cancer now!
Laura0 -
Another weapon in the arsenal...
Am wondering if, perhaps - you need more information from your own doctor, in order to make a decision?
For example, for me... Following surgery, my risk for mets was 60% within 3 years. Chemo reduced that risk by half, to 30%. Rads decreased the risk by another 10%.
Therefore, following all invasive treatments - my risk was brought down to 20%, where it remains nearly 8 years after DX. The oral meds I continue to take "hold" me at that 20% risk level.
We are all different, and our decisions are ours alone. However, if something comes along that would help me reduce my own risk by even just another 1% - I would do it.
With best wishes to you, Eva.
Kind regards, Susan0 -
Personal decisoin that you should discuss with your Dr.Christmas Girl said:Another weapon in the arsenal...
Am wondering if, perhaps - you need more information from your own doctor, in order to make a decision?
For example, for me... Following surgery, my risk for mets was 60% within 3 years. Chemo reduced that risk by half, to 30%. Rads decreased the risk by another 10%.
Therefore, following all invasive treatments - my risk was brought down to 20%, where it remains nearly 8 years after DX. The oral meds I continue to take "hold" me at that 20% risk level.
We are all different, and our decisions are ours alone. However, if something comes along that would help me reduce my own risk by even just another 1% - I would do it.
With best wishes to you, Eva.
Kind regards, Susan
BUT, I started chemo last July, had a mastectomy 3 days before Christmas. My repeat PET scan in Feb. was clear but I went ahead with the radiation as "insurance" against something that might have been small enough not to "light up" on the PET. I'm now on Femara and will be for at least 5 years. I'll do whatever has to be done to imnprove my odds now and deal with long-term effects if and when they crop up.0 -
It makes sense..skipper54 said:Personal decisoin that you should discuss with your Dr.
BUT, I started chemo last July, had a mastectomy 3 days before Christmas. My repeat PET scan in Feb. was clear but I went ahead with the radiation as "insurance" against something that might have been small enough not to "light up" on the PET. I'm now on Femara and will be for at least 5 years. I'll do whatever has to be done to imnprove my odds now and deal with long-term effects if and when they crop up.
If you want everything and anything you can throw at bc....even then there's no guarantee it won't come back....I had it all and it's back.....
Discuss with your oncologist and radiation oncologist....
Wishing you well with your decision...0 -
I asked the same question!MAJW said:It makes sense..
If you want everything and anything you can throw at bc....even then there's no guarantee it won't come back....I had it all and it's back.....
Discuss with your oncologist and radiation oncologist....
Wishing you well with your decision...
I asked the same question! I was so trying to avoid either chemo or radiation. Like someone else said though radiation is a piece of cake compared to chemo...but looking at a year ahead of chemo, herceptin, lumpectomy, then radiation, and hormone replacement seems a bit daunting......but I saw the charts and got the scolding of what if I chose to NOT do one and have come to terms with it all! Will be my second time for chemo and rad, so at least I know what to expect! We HAVE to do what we ultimately believe is going to help us...whatever that choice may be.0 -
This is my second go-round with breast cancer. Not a recurrence, the new tumor(s) had a completely different profile. I had Mammosite radiation, a form of brachitherapy, the first time, and am signed up for conventional radiation when I finish chemo this time. My radiation oncologist said that whatever my risk of recurrence is after chemo (and I also had a mastectomy this time), radiation will reduce it by one third. I am glad to hear people say it's easy after chemo, because I haven't had too bad a time with chemo, but, whatever, reducing the risk of recurrence by a third is something that is very persuasive to me.0
-
Made sense to me!
There is a chance that radiation is the cause of my IBC. Back in 1948 when my tonsils were taken out it was common to do radiation to the throat area to pervent them from growing back. (WRONG - mine grew back and at 65 I still have the second set!) Back then there really wasn't much known about using radiation as a treatment and a lot of 'stuff' did do harm. I also, as a small child, lived where there were early nuclear tests done not far away. BUT I never gave it a second thought when DX'd - I'd do everything that gave me a better chance of becoming a "Survivor". I do it again in a heart beat if suggested! I'm going to use everything in my arsenal against this monster - IF 'something' develops because of my fight - then I'll fight it with everyfhing I can.
That's me - not everybody feels the same as I do but I've always been a fighter and I'll fight again if I need to.
Susan0 -
Thank you all for sharing!Rague said:Made sense to me!
There is a chance that radiation is the cause of my IBC. Back in 1948 when my tonsils were taken out it was common to do radiation to the throat area to pervent them from growing back. (WRONG - mine grew back and at 65 I still have the second set!) Back then there really wasn't much known about using radiation as a treatment and a lot of 'stuff' did do harm. I also, as a small child, lived where there were early nuclear tests done not far away. BUT I never gave it a second thought when DX'd - I'd do everything that gave me a better chance of becoming a "Survivor". I do it again in a heart beat if suggested! I'm going to use everything in my arsenal against this monster - IF 'something' develops because of my fight - then I'll fight it with everyfhing I can.
That's me - not everybody feels the same as I do but I've always been a fighter and I'll fight again if I need to.
Susan
Hi guys,
Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. I am fortunate to have a low recurrence-risk to begin with. Chemo only bought me another 2%, and perhaps radiation will do the same. But the difference b/w my thinking on chemo and radiation has to do with the side effects. The only reason I did chemo was because I was recommended Cytoxan/Taxotere. There are supposedly no deadly long term side effects from these drugs (as unfortunately with some other chemo drugs). I am not afraid of short term suffering. That is not why I am considering not doing radiation. But if I lower my chance of recurrence by 2% with radiation but at the same time increase my chance of radiation induced cancer by 2%, what is the point? Then I am poisoning my body for 0% benefit. I had the same discussion with my oncologist regarding AC chemo. She agreed with me that AC would be stupid for me (but makes sense for many patients who have a different profile). Yet when my case was discussed at the local tumor board, 5 MOs were present. I think 3 wanted me to have AC for 6 months. I have no faith in them. I have read all the studies, done my homework and no research supports AC for my particular case. My MO agreed. My MO is smart and I like her a lot. I will discuss my thinking with her and the radiologist.
Again, thank you all so much for your thoughts!
Eva0 -
What ...ender said:Thank you all for sharing!
Hi guys,
Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. I am fortunate to have a low recurrence-risk to begin with. Chemo only bought me another 2%, and perhaps radiation will do the same. But the difference b/w my thinking on chemo and radiation has to do with the side effects. The only reason I did chemo was because I was recommended Cytoxan/Taxotere. There are supposedly no deadly long term side effects from these drugs (as unfortunately with some other chemo drugs). I am not afraid of short term suffering. That is not why I am considering not doing radiation. But if I lower my chance of recurrence by 2% with radiation but at the same time increase my chance of radiation induced cancer by 2%, what is the point? Then I am poisoning my body for 0% benefit. I had the same discussion with my oncologist regarding AC chemo. She agreed with me that AC would be stupid for me (but makes sense for many patients who have a different profile). Yet when my case was discussed at the local tumor board, 5 MOs were present. I think 3 wanted me to have AC for 6 months. I have no faith in them. I have read all the studies, done my homework and no research supports AC for my particular case. My MO agreed. My MO is smart and I like her a lot. I will discuss my thinking with her and the radiologist.
Again, thank you all so much for your thoughts!
Eva
What was your original diagnoses??.0 -
My original diagnosisMAJW said:What ...
What was your original diagnoses??.
was stage I invasive breast cancer. Im ER and PR positive, my HER2 is not expressed, I tested negative for all gene tests, my oncotypedx score was 16, my mammaprint came back as "low risk", my nodes were negative but I had "isolated tumor cells" in one node. My tumor was 1.3 cm.
Eva0 -
Again...ender said:My original diagnosis
was stage I invasive breast cancer. Im ER and PR positive, my HER2 is not expressed, I tested negative for all gene tests, my oncotypedx score was 16, my mammaprint came back as "low risk", my nodes were negative but I had "isolated tumor cells" in one node. My tumor was 1.3 cm.
Eva
I, personally, would take anything and everything they have to throw at it!0 -
Agree with MAJWender said:My original diagnosis
was stage I invasive breast cancer. Im ER and PR positive, my HER2 is not expressed, I tested negative for all gene tests, my oncotypedx score was 16, my mammaprint came back as "low risk", my nodes were negative but I had "isolated tumor cells" in one node. My tumor was 1.3 cm.
Eva
With there being "isolated tumor cells" present in a node - I'd definately be doing rads. But that's me - I'm ging to do everything possible to keep the monster away and not second guess. There is no way of knowing for rather or another cancer if it developes is caused by having had the rads (or chemo) or if it would have shown up anyway, possibly sooner.
Remember- most scans use some form of radiation - often injected directly into your blood.
Susan0 -
My rads oncologist explainedChristmas Girl said:Another weapon in the arsenal...
Am wondering if, perhaps - you need more information from your own doctor, in order to make a decision?
For example, for me... Following surgery, my risk for mets was 60% within 3 years. Chemo reduced that risk by half, to 30%. Rads decreased the risk by another 10%.
Therefore, following all invasive treatments - my risk was brought down to 20%, where it remains nearly 8 years after DX. The oral meds I continue to take "hold" me at that 20% risk level.
We are all different, and our decisions are ours alone. However, if something comes along that would help me reduce my own risk by even just another 1% - I would do it.
With best wishes to you, Eva.
Kind regards, Susan
My rads oncologist explained that rads kill any stray cancer cells left behind from surgery, so, I felt it was very necessary for me.
Good luck in whatever you decide to do.
Hugs, Jan0 -
RadiationDouble Whammy said:It's the "routine"
for radiation to follow chemo if you've kept your breast (had a lumpectomy) and in some cases even after mastectomy. If you need chemo, they don't delay it because chemo is systemic and will hopefully destroy any microscopic cells in other areas of your body they don't know about. Doing radiation first would let them sit there and grow undisturbed. Radiation is the bullet to areas they KNOW you had cancer. With a lumpectomy, you still have breast tissue and since they didn't remove all of your breast, there could be some other areas left behind.
All cancer treatments can cause a secondary cancer, including chemotherapy. Because treatments are improved and cancer patients are living longer, more of the long term effects are presenting themselves.
For me, I wanted to do whatever I could to kill the breast cancer and both chemo and radiation (and Arimidex) were recommended. When facing surgery, I was told if I had a lumpectomy that I would also have to have radiation, that the odds were pretty much the same in early stage cancer with lumpectomy and radiation vs. mastectomy. I don't know what they would have said if I said I want a lumpectomy but no radiation. No one knows what the future is going to bring. I figured I needed to deal with the breast cancer because we KNEW it was there. IF a secondary cancer develops, I'll deal with that. The odds are small, but certainly not unheard of.
Are you considering NOT doing radiation?
Suzanne
I just finished my 4th and final A/C chemo treatment. Next is Taxol for 12 weeks then surgery followed by radiation.
I have read and spoke to others regarding their treatment and found most get surgery first. I was wondering why my doctor wants to wait before I get surgery.
Anyone else going through the same?0 -
Same questionSueRelays said:I asked the same question!
I asked the same question! I was so trying to avoid either chemo or radiation. Like someone else said though radiation is a piece of cake compared to chemo...but looking at a year ahead of chemo, herceptin, lumpectomy, then radiation, and hormone replacement seems a bit daunting......but I saw the charts and got the scolding of what if I chose to NOT do one and have come to terms with it all! Will be my second time for chemo and rad, so at least I know what to expect! We HAVE to do what we ultimately believe is going to help us...whatever that choice may be.
I was told the same thing. I have a year ahead of me to complete my treatments. I just finished 4 treatments of AC Chemo. Now on to Taxol. Then surgery...then herceptin.0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.6K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 308 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 395 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.3K Kidney Cancer
- 671 Leukemia
- 791 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 235 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 56 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.4K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 534 Sarcoma
- 719 Skin Cancer
- 647 Stomach Cancer
- 190 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.9K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards