Re: Treating Circulating Tumor Cells (CTC's) - breast cancer dormancy (x-post)

From: Steph (steph_at_vancouver.island)
Date: 01/16/05 

Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 08:56:23 GMT

"J" <faked@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:41E99184.34D99D18@execulink.com...
> Kaye301 wrote:
>
>> Eva said: << Well, as Orac made clear in the entry, at present there
>> isn't any
>> known way
>> to treat these "dormant tumors," and it isn't even known whether treating
>> them would actually increase survival. >><BR><BR>
>>
>> Ah, but I see something very different. The article states: "Given that
>> blockers of tumor angiogenesis can cause tumor dormancy in experimental
>> tumor
>> models, my interest in this is more than passing." Why should this not
>> occur
>> with breast cancer patients? Yes, it does implicate the need for further
>> research.
>
> There's billions and billions of $$$ being collected in the name of cancer
> research and particularly breast cancer to the point of there almost not
> being
> enough for other diseases and/or cancers.
>
>> At the same time why shouldn't a patient be allowed the option of
>> taking an anti-angiogenesis agent if there is any chance that it might
>> save
>> their life or keep the b.c. under control?
>
> Well, madiba just posted to a prostate cancer patient that
> "All tumors shed cells into the bloodstream, what does this have to do
> with
> treating them? It certainly does not mean that all tumors are immediately
> metastatic."<his quote> So the CTC's are not a surprise there (to me).
>
> And as I recall, Orac's writeup showed that the further out (after 5
> years), the
> less chance of a recurrence or mets.
>
> So what are we going to end up doing?
> Prophylactic treatment for all (imaginable) diseases in the world to us,
> our kids,
> our grandkids?
>
> Seems to me, our insurance premiums would go up, our bodies would become
> toxic and
> we wouldn't know what was causing what anymore (ie be able to sort out a
> side
> effect/interaction/real disease).
> I realize that you (breast cancer) patients may think this is a "stretch"
> of a
> situation, but we all are at risk of other diseases too.
> So it seems to me, we go with the best advice as to what is known at the
> moment
> and not worry.
> What I mean by that (before someone gets angry), is that your risk Kaye of
> dying
> (on a day to day basis) is probably worse due to your driving to work (God
> forbid)
> or (insert here any other aging disease or accident that can occur to a
> person.
>
> In fact, on TV the other night they checked hospital staff at 3 (I believe
> Canadian hospitals) and over 40% had unusually high blood pressure. It was
> a shock
> to those who were checked; had no idea they were at risk. I guess my
> point (about
> worrying) is that there's other risks that can be life-ending, which may
> end your
> (group) lives before the 20/30/40 year recurrence possibility.
> (hope I've been clear and not upsetting anyone).
> J
>
>

You may remember the vogue in the 80s and 90s for high dose chemo and bone
marrow transplant for women with high risk breast cancer. It killed many
more than it saved.......

Relevant Pages
Quantcast