Bryan and I had a really terrific weekend. Mom went home on Saturday morning, and that was kind of a bummer. Then again, she and Dad have never been apart for as long as 3 weeks (wimps!), so it was OK that she had to leave. What a great mother! We're so thankful for her help and her heart.
Also on Saturday morning, Bryan managed to acquire a WWI German mauser with all its original parts. The euphoria of this find has net yet worn off.
On Sunday, we BBQ'd with our whole cul de sac and topped it off with a marshmellow roast. The kids collapsed with exhaustion and I particularly enjoyed being in the season where both of our children are big enough to run with the wolf pack and not need intense supervision.
Are you getting the feel of this? That there was a lot of life-as-usual delight for us? All of which is to say that we are really at peace about this chemo choice, and have not sensed a life-or-death pressure hanging over it.
It looks like we'll go with Option 2. This is for a few reasons that give me a warm fuzzy about it, regardless of the statistical indifference. I did talk to Dr. Markus today. A) The trial demonstrating this indifference was only among post-surgical patients, all of whom were "got all the big stuff out" women (Of course, Dr. Science used the medical term for this, but I don't remember what it is). B) My question, basically, had been "How effective was ACT without the H?" and the answer is, "In comparison to what? Because we have no studies comparing it to something that is relevant to my decision."
So, then, why Option 2:
1. I like the idea of shooting the H protein into the rogue cells right now and not waiting 4 months from now.
2. Option 1, Old School, administers 3 poisons 4 times over for a total of 12 doses of poison. Option 2 administers 2 poisons 6 times over for a total of 12 doses of poison.
BUT I like the idea of giving m body only 2 poisons overall, instead of a 3rd.
3. Old School "A" causes nausea. I would very likely suffer that effect. And then would either have to gut that out or take more drugs to counter-act it. While Option 2 lasts 6 weeks longer, I'm hoping the quality of life and quality of recovery (in terms of fewer chemicals to process) will be somewhat better.
So there it is. I think. We'll call Markus tomorrow with a firm commitment, and then we can nail down a firm start date.
Thank you for praying for us in this decision. We offer it up to God. He'll let us know before it's too late if it's not the right course--a faithful Father indeed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi Amy - Best wishes / good karma from Christopher and Cari - Please stay very involved in your treatment decisions - ask questions - challenge - If your Dr. can not point to clinical studies then for sure challeng his thinking - And even if he can study the results and understand the real outcome data - After 34 years in Healthcare Biz (GE Healthcare)- my jaded view is that Healthcare in US is driven by greed / fear of litigation - Anything I can do to help please ask - I am absolutely confident you will be OK - Best Regards - Christopher
Thanks, Christopher. This is good advice.
One great thing about military medicine is that the doctors have zero interest in the business end of things, but total interest in survival rates. :) So, in terms of our surgeon, we've been so blessed to have an easy mind about this.
And one of the things we've liked about Dr. Science (as Laura has nick-named him :) is that he is all about the research and at one point, to illustrate the trial in question, he got his laptop out and pulled up the power point slide show from the very paper that delivered the trial! It felt pretty good to see that graph. Especially the numbers that said 82 amd 83% survival 5 years down the road. :) (Not that God needs even 1% to save me. . .)
Anyway, thanks for the warning. We'll be sure to pay attention throughout the whole process.
All our best to you and Cari!
Amy - I have had experience with Oncologists in the military and fully agree that their focus / reward system is different - they want to advance the pactice and publish - to do so they need to accrue patients into structured studies - all good stuff but maybe not in the 100% best interest of the specific patient / condition - I am sure you have a good guy looking after you - But just ask questions and challenge and be actively involved - and all will be well - Regards - Christopher
Post a Comment