<!-- google_ad_section_start -->Breast Cancer Treatment Options<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
Health Forums

Go Back   Health Forums > Cancer > Breast Cancer > alt.support.cancer.breast

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-09-2006, 03:13 AM
Roman Bystrianyk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Breast Cancer Treatment Options

Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group, "Effects of
Radiotherapy and Surgery in Early Breast Cancer - An Overview of the
Randomized Trials", New England Journal of Medicine, November 30, 1995,
Vol. 333, Num. 22, pp. 1444-1456

"Background. Randomized trials of radiotherapy and surgery for early
breast cancer may have been too small to detect differences in
long-term survival and recurrence reliably. We therefore performed a
systematic overview (meta-analysis) of the results of such trials."

"Methods. Information was sought on each subject from investigators
who conducted trials that began before 1985 and that compared local
therapies for early breast cancer. Data on mortality were available
from 36 trials comparing radiotherapy plus surgery with the same type
of surgery alone, 10 comparing more-extensive surgery with
less-extensive surgery, and 18 comparing more-extensive surgery with
less-extensive surgery plus radiotherapy. Information on mortality was
available for 28,405 women (97.4 percent of the 29,175 women in the
trials)."

"Results. The addition of radiotherapy to surgery resulted in a rate
of local recurrence that was three times lower than the rate with
surgery alone, but there was no significant difference in 10-year
survival; among a total of 17,273 women enrolled in such trials,
mortality was 40.3 percent with radiotherapy and 41.4 percent without
radiotherapy (P = 0.3). Radiotherapy was associated with a reduced risk
of death due to breast cancer (odds ratio, 0.94; 95 percent confidence
interval, 0.88 to 1.00; P = 0.03), which indicates that, after 10
years, there would be about 0 to 5 fewer deaths due to breast cancer
per 100 women. However, there was an increased risk of death from other
causes (odds ratio, 1.24; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.09 to 1.42;
P = 0.002). This, together with the age-specific death rates, implies,
after 10 years, a few extra deaths not due to breast cancer per 100
older women or per 1000 younger women. During the first decade or two
after diagnosis, the excess in the rate of such deaths that was
associated with radiotherapy was much greater among women who were over
60 years of age at randomization (15.3 percent vs. 11.1 percent [339
vs. 249 deaths]) than among those under 50 (2.5 percent vs. 2.0 percent
[62 vs. 49 deaths]). Breast-conserving surgery involved some risk of
recurrence in the remaining tissue, but no significant differences in
overall survival at 10 years were found in the studies of mastectomy
versus breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy (4891 women),
more-extensive surgery versus less-extensive surgery (4818 women), or
axillary clearance versus radiotherapy as adjuncts to mastectomy (4370
women)."

"Conclusions. Some of the local therapies for breast cancer had
substantially different effects on the rates of local recurrence - such
as the reduced recurrence with the addition of radiotherapy to surgery
- but there were no definite differences in overall survival at 10
years."

"Trials of Radiotherapy"

"Figure 2 shows survival among the approximately 16,000 women in the
35 trials of radiotherapy from whom individual data on survival were
collected, categorized according to nodal status. There was no
statistically significant effect of radiotherapy in women with
node-positive or node-negative cancer."

"Overall, about one third more women in the radiotherapy groups than
in the non-radiotherapy groups died of "non-breast-cancer" causes (7.7
percent vs. 5.7 percent [527 vs. 391]), but this difference occurred
partly because those assigned to radiotherapy had slightly longer
recurrence-free survival and were therefore at risk for death without
recurrence for slightly longer. After we allowed for this, there was an
increase of only about one quarter in such deaths (odds ratio, 1.24 +/-
0.08; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.09 to 1.42; P=0.002). This
increase of about one quarter was found among women in all age groups:
under 50, 50 through 59, and 60 or older, at randomization. But, at
least during the first decade or two after diagnosis, that absolute
excess was much greater among those who were 60 or older at
randomization (15.3 percent vs. 11.1 percent [339 vs. 249 deaths] that
among those under 50 (2.5 percent vs. 2.0 percent [62 vs 49])."

"Trials Comparing More Extensive with Less Extensive Surgery"

"Overall, 48.0 percent of the women assigned to more extensive
surgery and 50.1 percent of those assigned to less extensive surgery
died; this corresponds to a nonsignificant reduction of 3 percent in
the odds of death. ... Data on causes of death were available for only
53 percent of the women who died without a recurrence of breast cancer;
these data also showed no significant differences."

"Figure 4 shows survival according to nodal status for approximately
3400 women in trials comparing more extensive with less extensive
surgery. The less extensive surgery was total or radical mastectomy in
some of these trials and simple mastectomy in all the others, since
data on individual patients were not available from the trial of
breast-conserving surgery. No difference in survival was apparent among
either women with node-positive cancer or those with node-negative
disease."

"Among the women whose outcomes are summarized in Figure 4,
more-extensive surgery involved a nonsignificant reduction in the rate
of recurrence; 48.8 percent of those treated with more-extensive
surgery and 50.3 percent of those with less-extensive surgery had a
reported recurrence (odds ratio, 0.98 +/- 0.05 with no significant
heterogeneity among different trials or among different types of
surgery)."

"Some of the local therapies for breast cancer had substantially
different effects on the rates of local recurrence, but there were no
definite differences in overall 10-year survival. It has long been
accepted that radiotherapy can delay or prevent local or regional
recurrence in women with early breast cancer, as may more extensive
surgery. More recently, it has appeared that radiotherapy can also
produce a small increase in the rate of death from causes other than
breast cancer. In this extensive overview, we confirmed these findings,
but we could not assess separately the effects of treatment on deaths
from cardiovascular or other specific causes or the relevance of
particular details of radiologic or surgical technique. Our findings
indicate, however, that the absolute excess rate of non-breast-cancer
mortality during the first decade or so after radiotherapy is strongly
related to age. Among women who were under 50 when they underwent
irradiation, the apparent excess is just a few deaths not due to breast
cancer per 1000 women, whereas among women who we 60 or older at the
time of radiotherapy, it is a few per 100. As Table 2 suggests, the
excess may persist for more than 10 years. If such a proportional
excess persists indefinitely, the absolute excess might become
appreciable even among women who were under 50 when they received
radiotherapy. Although the radiotherapy techniques differed
substantially among the studies, the overall result still provides a
valid measure of the value of such treatment."

Authors Note:
Despite the commonly held belief that radiation therapy after breast
cancer surgery is life saving, this research shows that there was no
definite overall difference in survival rate after 10 years. Also,
there was no definite difference in survival rate for less drastic
surgery, such as lumpectomy, as opposed more extensive surgery, such as
mastectomy. What is also alarming is that excess deaths due to
radiation for women under 50 amounted to a few per 1,000, whereas women
over 60 that were subject to radiation therapy resulted in a few deaths
per 100. Women should consider this important study before making a
decision to receive radiation therapy or a drastic mastectomy.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-09-2006, 03:13 AM
Mary Fisher
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Breast Cancer Treatment Options


"Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161707245.354469.221910@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group, "Effects of
> Radiotherapy and Surgery in Early Breast Cancer - An Overview of the
> Randomized Trials", New England Journal of Medicine, November 30, 1995,
> Vol. 333, Num. 22, pp. 1444-1456
>
> "Background. Randomized trials of radiotherapy and surgery for early
> breast cancer may have been too small to detect differences in
> long-term survival and recurrence reliably. We therefore performed a
> systematic overview (meta-analysis) of the results of such trials."
>
> "Methods. Information was sought on each subject from investigators
> who conducted trials that began before 1985 and that compared local
> therapies for early breast cancer. Data on mortality were available
> from 36 trials comparing radiotherapy plus surgery with the same type
> of surgery alone, 10 comparing more-extensive surgery with
> less-extensive surgery, and 18 comparing more-extensive surgery with
> less-extensive surgery plus radiotherapy. Information on mortality was
> available for 28,405 women (97.4 percent of the 29,175 women in the
> trials)."
>
> "Results. The addition of radiotherapy to surgery resulted in a rate
> of local recurrence that was three times lower than the rate with
> surgery alone, but there was no significant difference in 10-year
> survival; among a total of 17,273 women enrolled in such trials,
> mortality was 40.3 percent with radiotherapy and 41.4 percent without
> radiotherapy (P = 0.3). Radiotherapy was associated with a reduced risk
> of death due to breast cancer (odds ratio, 0.94; 95 percent confidence
> interval, 0.88 to 1.00; P = 0.03), which indicates that, after 10
> years, there would be about 0 to 5 fewer deaths due to breast cancer
> per 100 women. However, there was an increased risk of death from other
> causes (odds ratio, 1.24; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.09 to 1.42;
> P = 0.002). This, together with the age-specific death rates, implies,
> after 10 years, a few extra deaths not due to breast cancer per 100
> older women or per 1000 younger women. During the first decade or two
> after diagnosis, the excess in the rate of such deaths that was
> associated with radiotherapy was much greater among women who were over
> 60 years of age at randomization (15.3 percent vs. 11.1 percent [339
> vs. 249 deaths]) than among those under 50 (2.5 percent vs. 2.0 percent
> [62 vs. 49 deaths]). Breast-conserving surgery involved some risk of
> recurrence in the remaining tissue, but no significant differences in
> overall survival at 10 years were found in the studies of mastectomy
> versus breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy (4891 women),
> more-extensive surgery versus less-extensive surgery (4818 women), or
> axillary clearance versus radiotherapy as adjuncts to mastectomy (4370
> women)."
>
> "Conclusions. Some of the local therapies for breast cancer had
> substantially different effects on the rates of local recurrence - such
> as the reduced recurrence with the addition of radiotherapy to surgery
> - but there were no definite differences in overall survival at 10
> years."
>
> "Trials of Radiotherapy"
>
> "Figure 2 shows survival among the approximately 16,000 women in the
> 35 trials of radiotherapy from whom individual data on survival were
> collected, categorized according to nodal status. There was no
> statistically significant effect of radiotherapy in women with
> node-positive or node-negative cancer."
>
> "Overall, about one third more women in the radiotherapy groups than
> in the non-radiotherapy groups died of "non-breast-cancer" causes (7.7
> percent vs. 5.7 percent [527 vs. 391]), but this difference occurred
> partly because those assigned to radiotherapy had slightly longer
> recurrence-free survival and were therefore at risk for death without
> recurrence for slightly longer. After we allowed for this, there was an
> increase of only about one quarter in such deaths (odds ratio, 1.24 +/-
> 0.08; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.09 to 1.42; P=0.002). This
> increase of about one quarter was found among women in all age groups:
> under 50, 50 through 59, and 60 or older, at randomization. But, at
> least during the first decade or two after diagnosis, that absolute
> excess was much greater among those who were 60 or older at
> randomization (15.3 percent vs. 11.1 percent [339 vs. 249 deaths] that
> among those under 50 (2.5 percent vs. 2.0 percent [62 vs 49])."
>
> "Trials Comparing More Extensive with Less Extensive Surgery"
>
> "Overall, 48.0 percent of the women assigned to more extensive
> surgery and 50.1 percent of those assigned to less extensive surgery
> died; this corresponds to a nonsignificant reduction of 3 percent in
> the odds of death. ... Data on causes of death were available for only
> 53 percent of the women who died without a recurrence of breast cancer;
> these data also showed no significant differences."
>
> "Figure 4 shows survival according to nodal status for approximately
> 3400 women in trials comparing more extensive with less extensive
> surgery. The less extensive surgery was total or radical mastectomy in
> some of these trials and simple mastectomy in all the others, since
> data on individual patients were not available from the trial of
> breast-conserving surgery. No difference in survival was apparent among
> either women with node-positive cancer or those with node-negative
> disease."
>
> "Among the women whose outcomes are summarized in Figure 4,
> more-extensive surgery involved a nonsignificant reduction in the rate
> of recurrence; 48.8 percent of those treated with more-extensive
> surgery and 50.3 percent of those with less-extensive surgery had a
> reported recurrence (odds ratio, 0.98 +/- 0.05 with no significant
> heterogeneity among different trials or among different types of
> surgery)."
>
> "Some of the local therapies for breast cancer had substantially
> different effects on the rates of local recurrence, but there were no
> definite differences in overall 10-year survival. It has long been
> accepted that radiotherapy can delay or prevent local or regional
> recurrence in women with early breast cancer, as may more extensive
> surgery. More recently, it has appeared that radiotherapy can also
> produce a small increase in the rate of death from causes other than
> breast cancer. In this extensive overview, we confirmed these findings,
> but we could not assess separately the effects of treatment on deaths
> from cardiovascular or other specific causes or the relevance of
> particular details of radiologic or surgical technique. Our findings
> indicate, however, that the absolute excess rate of non-breast-cancer
> mortality during the first decade or so after radiotherapy is strongly
> related to age. Among women who were under 50 when they underwent
> irradiation, the apparent excess is just a few deaths not due to breast
> cancer per 1000 women, whereas among women who we 60 or older at the
> time of radiotherapy, it is a few per 100. As Table 2 suggests, the
> excess may persist for more than 10 years. If such a proportional
> excess persists indefinitely, the absolute excess might become
> appreciable even among women who were under 50 when they received
> radiotherapy. Although the radiotherapy techniques differed
> substantially among the studies, the overall result still provides a
> valid measure of the value of such treatment."
>
> Authors Note:
> Despite the commonly held belief that radiation therapy after breast
> cancer surgery is life saving, this research shows that there was no
> definite overall difference in survival rate after 10 years. Also,
> there was no definite difference in survival rate for less drastic
> surgery, such as lumpectomy, as opposed more extensive surgery, such as
> mastectomy. What is also alarming is that excess deaths due to
> radiation for women under 50 amounted to a few per 1,000, whereas women
> over 60 that were subject to radiation therapy resulted in a few deaths
> per 100. Women should consider this important study before making a
> decision to receive radiation therapy or a drastic mastectomy.


Does anyone except Tim understand all this?

Tim - can you summarise and make it make sense, please?

If it's important, that is.

Mary
>



Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-09-2006, 03:13 AM
A.P. Thorsen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Breast Cancer Treatment Options

"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:453e4351$0$29545$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet. net...
>
> "Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1161707245.354469.221910@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group, "Effects of
>> Radiotherapy and Surgery in Early Breast Cancer - An Overview of the
>> Randomized Trials", New England Journal of Medicine, November 30, 1995,
>> Vol. 333, Num. 22, pp. 1444-1456


<snip details>

> Does anyone except Tim understand all this?


I *think* I understand it.

> Tim - can you summarise and make it make sense, please?


I think it says radiotherapy is a local control (doesn't much change
long-term survival from BC, only changes local recurrance) -- but we knew
that. Same deal for more extensive vs. breast-conserving surgery -- but we
knew that, too. Also says there may be increased risk of death from other
(non-BC) causes in those treated with radiotherapy, but doesn't shed any
light on what or why, other than that for a while that effect seems to have
been worse for those over 60 than those under 50. Their sense seems to be
that this additional risk of death-from-other-causes may outweigh the
avoided risk of death-from-BC. The implication, presumably, is that
radiotherapy is perhaps causing other forms of mortality, but there's no
clue what or why.

What do you think, Tim?

> If it's important, that is.


It's a meta-analysis, of studies they say may have been too small to draw
conclusions from individually, so I dunno. Not the strongest form of
evidence. And there's really nothing there to act on, for those of us who
already did (or didn't) have any specific sort of surgery, radiotherapy as
part of treatment.

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-09-2006, 03:13 AM
Mary Fisher
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Breast Cancer Treatment Options


"A.P. Thorsen" <annthorsendontsendspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ehli2h$g44$1@news.msu.edu...
> "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:453e4351$0$29545$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet. net...
>>
>> "Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1161707245.354469.221910@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>>> Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group, "Effects of
>>> Radiotherapy and Surgery in Early Breast Cancer - An Overview of the
>>> Randomized Trials", New England Journal of Medicine, November 30, 1995,
>>> Vol. 333, Num. 22, pp. 1444-1456

>
> <snip details>
>
>> Does anyone except Tim understand all this?

>
> I *think* I understand it.


Good!

<I think :-)>
>
>> Tim - can you summarise and make it make sense, please?

>
> I think it says radiotherapy is a local control (doesn't much change
> long-term survival from BC, only changes local recurrance) -- but we knew
> that.


Yes.

> Same deal for more extensive vs. breast-conserving surgery -- but we knew
> that, too.


Yes.

> Also says there may be increased risk of death from other (non-BC) causes
> in those treated with radiotherapy, but doesn't shed any light on what or
> why, other than that for a while that effect seems to have been worse for
> those over 60 than those under 50.


No ...

> Their sense seems to be that this additional risk of
> death-from-other-causes may outweigh the avoided risk of death-from-BC.
> The implication, presumably, is that radiotherapy is perhaps causing other
> forms of mortality, but there's no clue what or why.


No ...
>
> What do you think, Tim?
>
>> If it's important, that is.

>
> It's a meta-analysis, of studies they say may have been too small to draw
> conclusions from individually, so I dunno. Not the strongest form of
> evidence.


Thanks, Ann, that's the impression I got too.

> And there's really nothing there to act on, for those of us who already
> did (or didn't) have any specific sort of surgery, radiotherapy as part of
> treatment.


No!

You're a love :-)

Mary
>
> Ann T.
> Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email
>



Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-09-2006, 03:13 AM
Tim Jackson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Breast Cancer Treatment Options

Mary Fisher wrote:
> "Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1161707245.354469.221910@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
>>Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group, "Effects of
>>Radiotherapy and Surgery in Early Breast Cancer - An Overview of the
>>Randomized Trials", New England Journal of Medicine, November 30, 1995,
>>Vol. 333, Num. 22, pp. 1444-1456
>>
>>"Background. Randomized trials of radiotherapy and surgery for early
>>breast cancer may have been too small to detect differences in
>>long-term survival and recurrence reliably. We therefore performed a
>>systematic overview (meta-analysis) of the results of such trials."
>>
>>"Methods. Information was sought on each subject from investigators
>>who conducted trials that began before 1985 and that compared local
>>therapies for early breast cancer. Data on mortality were available
>>from 36 trials comparing radiotherapy plus surgery with the same type
>>of surgery alone, 10 comparing more-extensive surgery with
>>less-extensive surgery, and 18 comparing more-extensive surgery with
>>less-extensive surgery plus radiotherapy. Information on mortality was
>>available for 28,405 women (97.4 percent of the 29,175 women in the
>>trials)."
>>
>>"Results. The addition of radiotherapy to surgery resulted in a rate
>>of local recurrence that was three times lower than the rate with
>>surgery alone, but there was no significant difference in 10-year
>>survival; among a total of 17,273 women enrolled in such trials,
>>mortality was 40.3 percent with radiotherapy and 41.4 percent without
>>radiotherapy (P = 0.3). Radiotherapy was associated with a reduced risk
>>of death due to breast cancer (odds ratio, 0.94; 95 percent confidence
>>interval, 0.88 to 1.00; P = 0.03), which indicates that, after 10
>>years, there would be about 0 to 5 fewer deaths due to breast cancer
>>per 100 women. However, there was an increased risk of death from other
>>causes (odds ratio, 1.24; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.09 to 1.42;
>>P = 0.002). This, together with the age-specific death rates, implies,
>>after 10 years, a few extra deaths not due to breast cancer per 100
>>older women or per 1000 younger women. During the first decade or two
>>after diagnosis, the excess in the rate of such deaths that was
>>associated with radiotherapy was much greater among women who were over
>>60 years of age at randomization (15.3 percent vs. 11.1 percent [339
>>vs. 249 deaths]) than among those under 50 (2.5 percent vs. 2.0 percent
>>[62 vs. 49 deaths]). Breast-conserving surgery involved some risk of
>>recurrence in the remaining tissue, but no significant differences in
>>overall survival at 10 years were found in the studies of mastectomy
>>versus breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy (4891 women),
>>more-extensive surgery versus less-extensive surgery (4818 women), or
>>axillary clearance versus radiotherapy as adjuncts to mastectomy (4370
>>women)."
>>
>>"Conclusions. Some of the local therapies for breast cancer had
>>substantially different effects on the rates of local recurrence - such
>>as the reduced recurrence with the addition of radiotherapy to surgery
>>- but there were no definite differences in overall survival at 10
>>years."
>>
>>"Trials of Radiotherapy"
>>
>>"Figure 2 shows survival among the approximately 16,000 women in the
>>35 trials of radiotherapy from whom individual data on survival were
>>collected, categorized according to nodal status. There was no
>>statistically significant effect of radiotherapy in women with
>>node-positive or node-negative cancer."
>>
>>"Overall, about one third more women in the radiotherapy groups than
>>in the non-radiotherapy groups died of "non-breast-cancer" causes (7.7
>>percent vs. 5.7 percent [527 vs. 391]), but this difference occurred
>>partly because those assigned to radiotherapy had slightly longer
>>recurrence-free survival and were therefore at risk for death without
>>recurrence for slightly longer. After we allowed for this, there was an
>>increase of only about one quarter in such deaths (odds ratio, 1.24 +/-
>>0.08; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.09 to 1.42; P=0.002). This
>>increase of about one quarter was found among women in all age groups:
>>under 50, 50 through 59, and 60 or older, at randomization. But, at
>>least during the first decade or two after diagnosis, that absolute
>>excess was much greater among those who were 60 or older at
>>randomization (15.3 percent vs. 11.1 percent [339 vs. 249 deaths] that
>>among those under 50 (2.5 percent vs. 2.0 percent [62 vs 49])."
>>
>>"Trials Comparing More Extensive with Less Extensive Surgery"
>>
>>"Overall, 48.0 percent of the women assigned to more extensive
>>surgery and 50.1 percent of those assigned to less extensive surgery
>>died; this corresponds to a nonsignificant reduction of 3 percent in
>>the odds of death. ... Data on causes of death were available for only
>>53 percent of the women who died without a recurrence of breast cancer;
>>these data also showed no significant differences."
>>
>>"Figure 4 shows survival according to nodal status for approximately
>>3400 women in trials comparing more extensive with less extensive
>>surgery. The less extensive surgery was total or radical mastectomy in
>>some of these trials and simple mastectomy in all the others, since
>>data on individual patients were not available from the trial of
>>breast-conserving surgery. No difference in survival was apparent among
>>either women with node-positive cancer or those with node-negative
>>disease."
>>
>>"Among the women whose outcomes are summarized in Figure 4,
>>more-extensive surgery involved a nonsignificant reduction in the rate
>>of recurrence; 48.8 percent of those treated with more-extensive
>>surgery and 50.3 percent of those with less-extensive surgery had a
>>reported recurrence (odds ratio, 0.98 +/- 0.05 with no significant
>>heterogeneity among different trials or among different types of
>>surgery)."
>>
>>"Some of the local therapies for breast cancer had substantially
>>different effects on the rates of local recurrence, but there were no
>>definite differences in overall 10-year survival. It has long been
>>accepted that radiotherapy can delay or prevent local or regional
>>recurrence in women with early breast cancer, as may more extensive
>>surgery. More recently, it has appeared that radiotherapy can also
>>produce a small increase in the rate of death from causes other than
>>breast cancer. In this extensive overview, we confirmed these findings,
>>but we could not assess separately the effects of treatment on deaths
>>from cardiovascular or other specific causes or the relevance of
>>particular details of radiologic or surgical technique. Our findings
>>indicate, however, that the absolute excess rate of non-breast-cancer
>>mortality during the first decade or so after radiotherapy is strongly
>>related to age. Among women who were under 50 when they underwent
>>irradiation, the apparent excess is just a few deaths not due to breast
>>cancer per 1000 women, whereas among women who we 60 or older at the
>>time of radiotherapy, it is a few per 100. As Table 2 suggests, the
>>excess may persist for more than 10 years. If such a proportional
>>excess persists indefinitely, the absolute excess might become
>>appreciable even among women who were under 50 when they received
>>radiotherapy. Although the radiotherapy techniques differed
>>substantially among the studies, the overall result still provides a
>>valid measure of the value of such treatment."
>>
>>Authors Note:
>>Despite the commonly held belief that radiation therapy after breast
>>cancer surgery is life saving, this research shows that there was no
>>definite overall difference in survival rate after 10 years. Also,
>>there was no definite difference in survival rate for less drastic
>>surgery, such as lumpectomy, as opposed more extensive surgery, such as
>>mastectomy. What is also alarming is that excess deaths due to
>>radiation for women under 50 amounted to a few per 1,000, whereas women
>>over 60 that were subject to radiation therapy resulted in a few deaths
>>per 100. Women should consider this important study before making a
>>decision to receive radiation therapy or a drastic mastectomy.

>
>
> Does anyone except Tim understand all this?
>
> Tim - can you summarise and make it make sense, please?
>
> If it's important, that is.
>
> Mary
>


Do I have to? Aww.

Ok, it first of all says that neither adjuvant radiotherapy after
surgery for breast cancer, nor electing for mastectomy rather than
lumpectomy, prolong life. Fair enough, they both reduce the rate of
local recurrence, but local recurrence is nearly always curable, so we
would expect no effect on mortality.

Then it goes on with the big but, that radiotherapy itself does seem to
have an adverse effect on mortality, that it would seem that women who
had radiotherapy don't live as long as their peers who did not. The
statistics don't exactly say that because this is a meta-analysis and
that wasn't what the original surveys were measuring, but that is a
deduction that can be made from the death rates.

The statistical significance is rather weak, but convincing that there
is probably an effect. What is not clear is how this can be translated
into average Quality Life Years per patient, that could be compared with
the loss of quality life involved in undergoing treatment for a
recurrence. This is a measure that would be needed in order to make
recommendations about changes in treatment regime. The author is
implying that radiotherapy is being overused, I think that is not yet
proven, but he has raised a question that needs to be considered. There
might also be a cost and resources issue over doing less radiotherapy
and more surgery on recurrences.

As others have said, there are no implications for patients who have
already completed treatments.


Tim
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-09-2006, 03:13 AM
Mary Fisher
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Breast Cancer Treatment Options


"Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
news:453e7237$0$8727$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-
>>
>>
>> Does anyone except Tim understand all this?
>>
>> Tim - can you summarise and make it make sense, please?
>>
>> If it's important, that is.
>>
>> Mary
>>

>
> Do I have to? Aww.


You don't HAVE to, we shan't love you any less if you don't ...
>
> Ok, it first of all says that neither adjuvant radiotherapy after surgery
> for breast cancer, nor electing for mastectomy rather than lumpectomy,
> prolong life. Fair enough, they both reduce the rate of local
> recurrence, but local recurrence is nearly always curable, so we would
> expect no effect on mortality.
>
> Then it goes on with the big but, that radiotherapy itself does seem to
> have an adverse effect on mortality, that it would seem that women who had
> radiotherapy don't live as long as their peers who did not. The
> statistics don't exactly say that because this is a meta-analysis and that
> wasn't what the original surveys were measuring, but that is a deduction
> that can be made from the death rates.
>
> The statistical significance is rather weak, but convincing that there is
> probably an effect. What is not clear is how this can be translated into
> average Quality Life Years per patient, that could be compared with the
> loss of quality life involved in undergoing treatment for a recurrence.
> This is a measure that would be needed in order to make recommendations
> about changes in treatment regime. The author is implying that
> radiotherapy is being overused, I think that is not yet proven, but he has
> raised a question that needs to be considered. There might also be a cost
> and resources issue over doing less radiotherapy and more surgery on
> recurrences.
>
> As others have said, there are no implications for patients who have
> already completed treatments.
>

Thanks, Tim.

Why couldn't the author have said it so succinctluy?

:-)

Mary
>
> Tim



Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chi Gong Treatment for Cancer sml_lau alt.support.cancer 7 11-14-2006 05:40 PM
Chi Gong Treatment for Cancer sml_lau alt.support.cancer.prostate 18 11-11-2006 08:30 AM
Mortality following breast cancer treatment gzajicek@what-is-cancer.com alt.support.cancer.breast 0 11-09-2006 03:13 AM
Screening & treatment for lung cancer less expensive than late-stagecancer treatment J alt.support.cancer 6 11-09-2006 03:04 AM
Mortality following breast cancer treatment gzajicek@what-is-cancer.com alt.support.cancer 0 11-09-2006 03:02 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0
     
   
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41