-- treatable but not curable?

September 12, 2004

I don't want to be pessimistic about Elain's posting, just want to share my

knowledge with you.

I had cancer first time 17 years ago, like Chirstina's said, I also had the

misfortuned of it recurreing in multiple times, despite receiving constant

encouragement of having good chance to be cured. so I understand

's frustration.

Cured or not can be defined differently, from medical provider's viewpoint,

and from insurance.

Tamofixfen is a SERM, it helps to compete with estrogen to occupy the

estrogen receptor in the cancer cell. The cancer cell is plugged in but not

energized so it dies. Aromaste Inhibitor is another range of drug that

reduces estrogen, to starve the cell to its death.

But our bodies, regardless of healthy or not, can produce cancer cells each

day. It is our immune system that helps to fight off the new crops of

cancer cells.

SERM and AI are like shields, while you have them, and a period soon after

the last dosage, you are protected. But when the time is over with your

shield is gone, you are left alone to fight the new crops.

Thus from insurance viewpoint, unless one is 5 years free from SERM, AI or

any treatment, one is not considered cancer free in its purest form.

For example, I had surgery 10 years ago, tamoxifen for 6 years, drug free

for 4 years and it is back and worst, metatasized. Same crop. Now my doc

changed their tune to " manage " rather than " cure " .

Thus Elain is right, we have to be extra vigilant. More so important, don't

count on SERM and AI which are temporary, instead, build our health back,

find the cause of the problem and resolve it forever-- I am beginning on

that journey.

Bibi

>well I can only go by what happen to me. I was told that I was cured and 4

>yeras later I was metastatic, but good for you!

>

>C

_________________________________________________________________

Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

Recommended Posts